Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Drug and Alcohol Misuse

Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met representatives of organisations providing residential drug and alcohol projects to discuss the change in community care.

Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will review specific funding arrangements for services to drug and alcohol abusers.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Representatives of organisations providing residential services for alcohol and drug misusers, and from local authority associations, last met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the then Under-Secretary of State for Health—my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo)—on 15 December 1992. We have undertaken to monitor the implementation of the new arrangements closely.

Mr. Connarty: I am grateful to the Minister and glad to hear that he has been meeting those organisations. Does he share my concern at the report in Care Weekly of 3 June that only £10 million has been identified by local authorities for use in respect of residential alcohol and drug cases? Had the sum been ring-fenced as the Government supplied it directly, it would have been £16·5 million. That means that there is a £6·5 million shortfall in funding for those vital services. Will the Minister do something to rectify the position?

Dr. Mawhinney: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the amounts were ring-fenced. He suggests that they should have been ring-fenced within a ring fence, which does not make a lot of sense. We have issued special guidance, which we drew up with the local government associations, telling local authorities that we attach a high priority to those groups. It is for local authorities individually to assess their needs and proceed accordingly.

Ms Eagle: The Minister will not need reminding of the link between drug misuse and the increased threat of HIV and AIDS infection. Does he agree that the shortfall in funding indentified by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) has already increased anxiety about that? Would the Minister care to comment on the persistent rumour that the Government intend to announce—[HON. MEMBERS: "Another rumour."]
Another rumour. I want to give the Minister a chance to deny that rumour, if hon. Members will let me proceed. Would the Minister like to comment on the persistent rumour that the Government intend to end ring fencing for AIDS services in August next year, thus putting health at risk?

Dr. Mawhinney: Like the hon. Lady, we attach importance to the fight against drugs misuse. That is why this year we made more than £24 million available in connection with drugs misuse services—an increase of more than 20 per cent. on last year's figure. It is why we have allocated £19 million this year, which is a 10 per cent. increase for service development. It is why we have increased by 90 per cent. the amount of money that we have made available to fund the expansion of pharmacy-based needle exchange schemes. The hon. Lady will know that, in her own constituency, the Wirral drug prevention team is undertaking many activities, all of which are designed to reduce drugs misuse.

Mr. David Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the county councillors who were elected as social service representatives on 6 May should now be fully aware of the community care needs of the areas that they represent—including the needs of alcohol and drug addicts—and to whom the excellent voluntary organisations ought now to be making representations?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. Ultimately, it will not be the decisions of Ministers that are primarily addressed to the individual needs of alcohol and drug misusers but the decisions of those who have the legal responsibility—the local authorities.

Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister now has sitting beside him the new Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who, in the past, has actively campaigned for the ring fencing of funds for drug and alcohol projects. I remind the Minister of some of the problems that are arising across the country as a direct result of the Government's about-turn on the ring fencing of funds for such projects. Many important projects are now faced with closure. There are people on the streets who have serious problems and cannot get help, there are allegations that at least one person has died as a direct result of the Government's policy. Will the Minister address the problem urgently and reinstate the original ring-fencing arrangements?

Dr. Mawhinney: What I will do is extend the hon. Gentleman's question to a welcome to the new Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). The hon. Gentleman is aware that we have made much more money available for the implementation of care in the community than even he, in his wildest moments, fantasised that the Government would make available—£140 million more.
We have made that money available so that local authorities can undertake personal assessments of individual need and so shape services designed to meet those needs—some in residential homes and some in other ways. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to support that broad principle with us.

Assessment Procedures

Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received on the workings of the assessment procedures introduced under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990; and if she will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): From the information available, the new arrangements seem generally to have got off to a good start. We have established a monitoring system to ensure that the policy objectives are met. We have received a number of representations on the workings of the assessment procedures and will consider carefully any suggestions to improve still further those processes.

Mr. Rowe: It is a pleasure to see a former director of community affairs at the Dispatch Box for the first time and I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to that position. Does he agree that the new assessment procedures have, as part of their merit, the great advantage that they make it easier for care managers to assess the amount of care and to budget rather more precisely for the delivery of that care? If that is the case, why is the Department so anxious about the possibility of extending direct payment to those clients who are deemed to be best served by it?

Mr. Bowis: From one former community affairs director to another, I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) for having read my collected speeches.
We are all aware of the stout work that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has carried out with Lord McColl in respect of this research and debate. His aims, like ours, are to ensure that patients have a much greater say and are much more involved in planning for their needs. My hon. Friend will accept that at the moment. we need to ensure that the new community care reforms have time to settle down, bearing in mind that social security has traditionally been the route for cash and social services the route for services. If my hon. Friend continues to debate, I will continue to listen and perhaps we can look to the future together.

Mr. Redmond: I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Will he instruct all chairmen appointed by the national health service to answer questions from right hon. and hon. Members? Some chairmen refuse to answer questions. Will he request that they answer them?

Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his initial comments. Perhaps he can draw to my attention any particular problems that he experiences. I believe that we want openness in the development of our policy. In so far as Ministers are responsible, we will respond and in so far as local health authorities are responsible, they will respond, as will local social services departments. Openness is important and I am glad to know that at least the hon. Gentleman basically supports the aims and objectives of our policy.

Immunisation

Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made immunising against childhood diseases in the Trent region.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): The childhood immunisation programme has been an enormous success. At February 1993, Trent region had uptake rates of 94 per cent. for diphtheria, tetanus and polio immunisation, 91 per cent. for whooping cough and 93 per cent. for measles, mumps and rubella.

Mrs. Knight: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating all the general practitioners in Trent region on that very successful programme? Has not the GP contract also played a part in that success? However, is my hon. Friend aware of the somewhat erratic supply earlier this year of the mumps, measles and rubella vaccine to the Southern Derbyshire health authority, which covers my constituency of Erewash? Can he assure me that there will be no further interruption in the supply of that very important vaccine?

Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend will be aware that two vaccines were withdrawn last year, which caused difficulties, particularly in her area. I understand that those difficulties have now been sorted out. I should like to join her in congratulating the local GPs who responded magnificently. Since the Hib vaccine was introduced last year, haemophilus influenza has reduced by 70 per cent. and whooping cough is rarely seen in the surgery. Since 1989, no child has died as a result of acute measles-related diseases.

Mr. Ashton: Is it any wonder that there is a shortage of vaccine when Trent regional health authority can spend £200,000 with a public relations firm to cover its tracks on the Beverley Allitt case? Why has that taxpayers' and health service money been spent when there will be an inquiry in private? Did the Secretary of State for Health agree to spending that £200,000? If so, why has she accepted that there will be a private inquiry?

Mr. Sackville: That is a decision for the region. The important thing is to get the facts with the minimum of disruption to the professionals involved and to the institution, and the qualifications of Sir Cecil Clothier are impeccable for that task.

Psychiatric Beds

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds have been closed in psychiatric hospitals over the past 10 years, with the effect of releasing how many patients into the community; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Bowis: The average number of beds available daily for mentally ill people fell from 85,000 to 50,000 between 1981 and 1993–92. It is not known how many patients have been discharged into the community over that period. Our policy is to enable people with mental health problems to be able to be supported in their own homes for as long as that is desirable and possible, while recognising that there will always be people who require hospital care—some of it long stay.

Mr. Greenway: Madam Speaker—

Mr. Foulkes: Declare your interest, Harry.

Mr. Greenway: My interest is my constituency of Ealing, North. My concern is that people should not be put back into the community from psychiatric institutions without proper preparation for that and without proper housing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Of course, that applies to some Labour Members. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that no one will be discharged or put back into society without proper preparation? That is damaging to the individual when it happens and most worrying to neighbours and/or members of the community where it happens.

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend's notable battles on behalf of Ealing undoubtedly led partly to the opening last year of the new £10 million mental health unit by the Ealing health authority. I assure my hon. Friend that our policy is that no one will be forced to leave a mental health institution unless and until the community is ready to receive him or her. We have the care programme approach in place that ensures that community services, including treatment and housing, are ready to receive an individual and that a key worker is in place to guide that person. I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with that assurance.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is not the Minister shocked by the appalling ignorance of his Department in not knowing how many people have left mental hospitals and gone into the community? Since the Department does not know how many people have left, how can it know what sort of monitoring and care exists for those who have left? It is a disgraceful answer. I hope that the Minister will look at the matter seriously because it is of grave concern to people all over the country.

Mr. Bowis: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands what a discharge is—a discharge is not necessarily a person leaving a hospital once and for all., The number of discharges does not relate to the number of people because some people go into hospital more than once. The statistics are there for local use and local planning. The important point is that locally the district health authority will ensure that people do not leave hospital unless and until there are facilities in the community to receive them.

GP Fund Holding

Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to extend the GP fund-holding initiative.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): GP fund holding has shown itself to be an outstanding success, bringing many benefits to patients. There will be more to come. As the controller of the Audit Commission recently said,
fund holding is leading the way, with many imaginative innovations which are good for the health of the population.
One in four of the population now benefits from having a fund holder as his or her family doctor. With the numbers preparing to join the scheme from next April, we expect that figure to rise to one in three.

Mr. Merchant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for the reasons that she has given, the fund-holding initiative has proved to be particularly popular with both doctors and patients, as illustrated by the practice of Dr. Kenneth Scott in my constituency? Does she agree that one of the most important priorities now must be to ensure that the smaller practices are able to benefit fully from the fund-holding initiative? Would she care to tell the House what steps she is taking to enable that goal to be achieved?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. I am delighted to hear about the progress in his constituency. We should like to see more fund holders across London because they can pioneer new ways of helping patients. The challenge now is to extend the benefits of fund holding to as many general practitioners as possible and to encourage the creation of groups, consortiums and management arrangements. About 70 groups already operate and about 150 are likely to come through for next year.

Mr. Grocott: Is it too much to hope that the Secretary of State will consider the overwhelming evidence that the fund-holding system leads to a two-tier system for patients? Will she look at the evidence that I have sent to her on the issue? Even for this Government, is it not indefensible to treat people not on the basis of their medical need but sometimes on the basis of whether their GP is a fund holder or a non-fund holder? As the Government have made so many U-turns on so many issues, is it too much to hope that they will make one on fund holding?

Mrs. Bottomley: The Labour party likes to centralise control over all decisions. We believe in devolving responsibility. The general practitioner is the advocate for the patient. Fund holding enables GPs to back their decisions with money so that they can pioneer care that is closest to patients' needs. There are clear guidelines on common waiting lists and a requirement that the treatment of patients of fund holders should not disadvantage the patients of other general practitioners.
The real point is that all general practitioners should have the advantage of fund holding. The task now is for all general practitioners to use leverage through fund holding or by working with the district health authority as the purchaser to achieve continual improvements in the quality of treatment for their patients.

Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. Friend see a parallel between the opposition expressed by some general practitioners some time ago to generic medicines and the opposition that was experienced recently to fund holding? Is she aware that in the Torbay constituency the GP who was virulent in his opposition to fund holding is now a fund holder? Does she agree that the opposition that we saw to generic medicines and fund holding has vanished? Is not that an endorsement of the policy?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend exactly characterises the position. Time and again, I meet fund holders who were initially cautious about the scheme but now say that it has profoundly redressed the previous balance of power in the health service. We believe in a health service in which patients, not institutions, come first. The general practitioner is the advocate on behalf of the patient. Once again, we see the Labour party promoting a sneering campaign of denigration which shows its hallowed principle of equal misery for all. It does not like excellence.

Mr. Burden: Would the Secretary of State care to consider the case of Dr. Zuckermann in my constituency, who referred a patient to a local orthopaedic hospital and received a reply that the patient could not be seen until January next year? He then received a telephone call saying, "Sorry, we did not realise that you were a fund-holding general practice. We can see the patient in four to six weeks." The hospital got it wrong because Dr. Zuckermann is not a fund-holding GP. Does not that prove that fund-holding GP systems are about queue-jumping and creating a two-tier health service?

Mrs. Bottomley: There are clear agreements with the profession about the way in which fund holding operates. The answer for the general practitioner involved is either to become a fund holder—[ Interruption.] I am pleased that in Birmingham, where there are many singlehanded practices or two-handed practices, there are several schemes to encourage them to form fund-holding practices. Alternatively, the answer for the general practitioner is to work with the district health authority to get the purchasing improvement that the fund holders are establishing.
Once again, the hon. Gentleman fails to recognise the dramatic achievements in reducing waiting times for everyone. We have now established a maximum waiting time for all hip, knee and cataract operations, so the length of time anyone waits for treatment is substantially less than it was in the long distant past when the Labour party was, regrettably, in power.

Patients Charter

Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the implementation of the patients charter waiting time guarantee in the South Western region.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Latest provisional waiting time figures show that the South Western regional health authority has been extremely successful in meeting the waiting time commitments in the patients charter. In line with the patients charter, no one in the region has had to wait for more than two years for any in-patient or day case treatment, or 18 months for hip or knee replacement or cataract operations.

Mr. Robinson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows that, five years ago, 13,500 people in the south-west were waiting for more than one year. I hear a rumour that that figure is down to 300. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that figure? Does she agree that it shows the effectiveness of hospital trusts, such as the East Somerset hospital trust? Does not it give the lie to some of the myths being peddled by the Liberal Democrats and others in the south-west?

Mrs. Bottomley: I can confirm the rumour. Of course, the south-west has an excellent record of delivering on patients charter commitments, but across the country there have been dramatic falls in waiting times. Last year, for example, there was a fall of 24,000 in the number of people waiting for more than a year—almost a third—so the figures are the lowest ever. I am pleased that my hon. Friend paid tribute to the East Somerset trust, because there has been a great deal of investment in it. Like others, it is solving its problems and pioneering ever-higher standards of patient care.

Ms Primarolo: The patients charter is wholly irrelevant to the real needs of patients, whether in the south-west or the rest of the country. While the Secretary of State has been concentrating on the time people wait in out-patient departments to see a doctor for non-urgent operations, one in 10 cardiac patients is dying while waiting for treatment. Children needing emergency beds in intensive care are being turned away from hospitals. Today's report in the Daily Mirror of the death of a young girl—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time and I require a direct question to the Secretary of State.

Ms Primarolo: The question is that the report in the Daily Mirror today of the death of a young girl follows on from a report that the Secretary of State has on paediatric care—

Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady would put—

Ms Primarolo: I am going to.

Madam Speaker: No, not going to. The hon. Lady will put what she has to say in the form of a question.

Ms Primarolo: The Secretary of State has a report. Will she confirm that a quarter of paediatric intensive care beds are closed because of underfunding? Will she now make an emergency statement to the House that children who need emergency treatment will not be turned away from the national health service?

Mrs. Bottomley: So far as I know, the question is about the South Western region. It is typical of the Labour party, with its shroud-waving approach to health care, that it should seek to use a question on the South Western region to refer to that other case. It is certainly a tragic case and all of us would greatly sympathise with the family involved. An investigation is under way by the British Paediatric Association into intensive paediatric care. Once its report is published we will certainly make it available and see what necessary action should follow.
Perhaps the Labour party might grudgingly be prepared to recognise that today is also one on which a dramatic fall in cot deaths has been reported. The gentleman who pioneered the work on cot deaths comes from Bristol and the hon. Lady might have wished to pay him credit, given that he comes from the south-west. We are also seeing improvements in child health as a result of the immunisation programme.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Since the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) introduced, quite improperly, another hospital authority in her question, may I set the record straight? There have been no cuts in intensive care paediatric beds in Manchester or Liverpool. The young girl who died so tragically—

Madam Speaker: Order. Much as I am interested in what the hon. Lady has to say, she must put a question. If not, we shall move on.

Dame Kellett-Bowman: Madam Speaker, I was doing as you did—reprimanding the hon. Member for Bristol, South for mentioning a different region—

Madam Speaker: I am the umpire here

Pharmacies

Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the numbers of pharmacies which are at risk of closure during the next three years.

Dr. Mawhinney: Community pharmacies are independent commercial businesses. We have made no estimate of the number that might close, or open, in the next three years, as such events could be affected by a variety of factors.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that the present policy will mean that a large number of pharmacies will be severely penalised and that many hundreds are now imperilled? Is he also aware that, as a result of that policy, enormous additional burdens will be placed on family doctors in less well-populated areas? Since the Government purport to care for rural England, will the Minister ensure that that policy is reconsidered in the interests of rural communities?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. That is not the consequence of the policies that are currently being pursued. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the negotiations that are now being undertaken between officials in the Department and representatives of the pharmacists. Those negotiations are proceeding constructively. We are seeking to replace indiscriminate subsidies to pharmacies with payments related more closely to professional services. The hon. Gentleman will find that the Public Accounts Committee has strongly endorsed that strategy. May I also assure him that we are committed to protecting the essential small pharmacies to which he referred.

Mr. Sims: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is just as important that pharmacies should be easily accessible in suburban areas as in rural ones? Does he also agree that patients could make fuller use of their local pharmacy for health care? There is a great potential for pharmacists to play an increasing role as part of the local primary health care team.

Dr. Mawhinney: As is so often the case, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We attach importance to maintaining essential small pharmacies not only in rural areas, but in suburban ones, particularly isolated pharmacies, perhaps on housing estates where people live at some distance from the main shopping centres. I assure my hon. Friend that it was precisely because of the current negotiations with the pharmacists that we have recognised that they have a value-added health role to play in offering professional advice and that we are, as part of those negotiations, looking to introduce a professional allowance for them.

Mrs. Mahon: The Government's policy affects the business of pharmacies. Does the Minister agree that any savings generated from a cheaper contraceptive pill could lead to more unwanted pregnancies and terminations as well as affecting the business of those pharmacies? The cost of one termination is £270 to the NHS, the cost of 10 years' supply of the contraceptive pill, so surely that is the economics of the madhouse.

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Lady's second question falls outside the scope of the main question. On her first question, I agree that hon. Members attach importance to maintaining an effective provision of pharmacies and the

health advice that pharmacists can give. Over the past 10 years, the number of pharmacists has increased by 9 per cent. and the total number of pharmacists has increased by 13 per cent. Our desire to emerge with a stronger range of pharmaceutical advice for the constituents of all hon. Members forms part of our negotiations with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee.

Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend do everything that he can to publicise the figures that he has just given to the House? Is he aware of rumours sweeping Staffordshire and other parts that the Government have evil designs on pharmacists? Will he unequivocally state that that is not the case?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right—there have been suggestions in places further afield than Staffordshire that the Government have some sort of hidden agenda to close pharmacies. That is not true and I give that categorical assurance. I would deplore any attempt by anyone to try to gain advantage during the negotiations by scaring members of the public unnecessarily.

Elderly Patients

Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what increase there has been in the emergency admissions for elderly patients over the last two years; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Sackville: Between 1991–92 and 1992–93, there was a 6·9 per cent. increase in the number of non-elective admissions of patients aged 65 and over.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the reason for that increase in admissions is the fact that more and more admissions are turned down by hospitals that are trying to operate in the market forces world of medicine which the Government have introduced? The only way in which some general practitioners can gain admission for elderly people is to dial 999 after the patients have already been turned down by hospitals.

Mr. Sackville: I am well aware that there have been complaints from general practitioners in the hon. Gentleman's district about Tickhill Road hospital. I am also aware that Doncaster Royal and Montagu are taking steps to ensure that all elderly patients are admitted locally. If the hon. Gentleman thinks, as do many other Labour Members, that provision can be measured by the number of beds, and if he ignores advances in day surgery and medicine and other improvements which mean that more people can be better treated in fewer beds, he knows nothing about what is happening in the health service.

Ms Lynne: Does the Minister accept that a crisis is looming for elderly patients due to the closure of many geriatric beds and hospitals and the underfunding of community care? Does he accept that we could see a number of elderly patients on the streets in the same way as we have seen mental health patients on the streets?

Mr. Sackville: May I correct the hon. Lady—community care is extremely generously funded. If there are insufficient places for elderly people, the hon. Lady should address her remarks to the provider, the local social services.

Market Power

Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to control abuses of market power in the NHS.

Dr. Mawhinney: There is no evidence of abuse of market powers.

Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister recall that last year in my constituency an experimental and brilliant way of delivering long-term rehabilitation had to be stopped because the bigger providers would not allow it? Does he know about Hertfordshire, where purchasers are strangling the hospitals? Does he know that nurses are on the streets of Newcastle today defending their hospital against the bigger providers who are trying to strip the services? If the Minister is not willing to act, why will not he let the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the national health service to sort out the abuses and ensure that there is fair play?

Dr. Mawhinney: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I know about Newcastle. The average general practitioner list size has decreased by more than 6 per cent. I know that the number of child health surveillance patients treated has increased by more than 10 per cent. I know that the number of minor surgical procedures has increased by 164 per cent. What I understand, but the hon. Gentleman does not, is that the health service is not confined to hospitals. It also extends into the community and primary care. The record in his part of the world is as good as it is in the rest of the country. People understand that they do not have to spend time in hospital when treatment and care are frequently available to them in their homes. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that more day surgery is available to his constituents so that they spend less time in hospital. I have news for the hon. Gentleman—that is what his constituents would prefer to do.

Mrs. Roe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the implementation of the national health service reforms has been a great success, resulting in the treatment of more patients, shorter waiting times and better patient care? I congratulate him on taking the reforms forward, particularly in the development of purchasing. Will he give an assurance that that vital work will continue and that we not be deflected by Labour party scaremongering?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Last year, we treated, in terms of general and acute patients, 13·5 per cent. more than we treated in the year before the reforms were introduced. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that activity in trusts last year was 7·6 per cent. higher as against 4·5 per cent. in directly managed units.
I can certainly offer my hon. Friend the assurance she seeks. We are moving to the next phase of the reforms, which is to increase and improve purchasing arrangements in this country. Purchasers are the advocates and agents of patients and it is their responsibility to see that an increasing amount of service, and increased quality of service, is made available to patients.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will agree that while improvements have been made in the national health service, we have not reached heaven yet. So let us return to the question and deal with the abuses. Is not it an abuse for

a major pharmaceutical company to use its front-line position to bring pressure on small wholesale chemists to turn them into agents of the company? Is not it an abuse for a health authority to refuse to purchase good-quality services at reasonble cost, thereby trying to shut out a provider?

Dr. Mawhinney: I must tell the hon. Gentleman, as he would expect, that it is for purchasers to determine how they best achieve value for the large amounts of money that are available to them for purchasing good-quality and extensive health care for those for whom they are acting.
The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that he obviously has a specific example, of which I am not aware, in mind. He might care to bring it to the attention of my noble Friend Lord Arran, who has responsibility for those matters in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree, given that the health service is available to patients free at the time when they need it, that it is in their interest that market forces should operate in the system, that there should he competition between providers and that there can be competition between purchasers? Will he welcome our right hon. Friend's comments about encouraging private sector money into the health service, for the overall benefit of NHS patients?

Dr. Mawhinney: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is totally spurious to suggest that the Government must choose between being caring on the one hand and being concerned for efficiency and-cost effectiveness on the other. It is in the interests of patients that we run the health service as efficiently as possible. In that way, more patients are able to be cared for and treated with the record amount of resources that are now being made available.

Mr. Rooney: Is the Minister aware that one of the four suppliers of sterilised theatre packs in Britain, Southrim Autoclave Ltd., is in my constituency? Is he further aware that the trust running Leeds general infirmary has placed a contract worth £250,000 direct with a Dutch company without even inviting any of those four British companies to tender? Is not that an abuse of the use of market forces?

Dr. Mawhinney: Purchasers have a responsibility to make the best possible arrangements they can for those on whose behalf they are acting.

NHS Patients

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of patients treated in NHS hospitals receive their treatment (a) immediately, (b) within a month and (c) within a year; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Half of all admissions are immediate. Of those who do wait, 44 per cent. are admitted within four weeks and three quarters wait for only three months. As a result of our initiatives, 98 per cent. of patients are admitted within a year.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is excellent news and is a true vindication of Conservative policy in reducing waiting lists? On the subject of waiting lists, would she care to speculate on how


long Conservative Members will have to wait for Labour Members to make up their minds on their policies for the national health service?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. We have delivered remarkable reductions in waiting times and a record fall in one-year waiters and we have substantially reduced the average length of time that people must wait, both in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere. During this time, as my hon. Friend rightly says, health has been a policy-free zone for the Labour party. The Opposition are still contemplating their navels in respect of their relationship with the trade unions—and it was ever thus.

Mr. McCartney: When this Government talk about waiting lists we get lies, damned lies and then the Secretary of State. Waiting lists are at a record high and nearly 1 million people are on them. Since the Prime Minister came to office, 1,500 people a week have been joining the waiting lists. Why does not the Secretary of State publish waiting times for first out-patient appointments? In all parts of the country people are waiting up to two years just to get appointments to see consultants. That means that many patients are waiting for up to four years for treatment. When will the Secretary of State act on that?

Mrs. Bottomley: The success of the patients charter has been such that there have been dramatic falls in waiting times and the average times that people have to wait for in-patient care have fallen. Moreover, we are now setting out-patient waiting time targets and they will be published. Not only will they be met: I expect that, like our other waiting list targets, they will be beaten. The patients charter provides a written constitution of the health service and people in the health service have been delivering these targets for better patient care.
It is high time that the Labour party gave sonic credit to all the doctors, nurses and others in the health service who have worked so hard for patients.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. McKelvey: Did the Prime Minister have an opportunity in the course of his very busy day yesterday to have a look at Scotland's national newspaper, the Daily Record, which carried an article stating that the former Chancellor claims that the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister alone, was responsible for imposing VAT on fuel? Did he impose it on his own; and will he answer without waffle?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that in the course of my busy day I certainly did not read the Daily Record. The answer to his second point is that the House of Commons imposed the VAT by its vote.

Mr. John Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a head teacher of a school near my constituency, having received a salary increase that had been denied to several thousand other citizens, wrote to the Secretary of State for Education telling him that he could stuff his pay rise? If head teachers take that attitude and use that sort of language, is it any surprise that they are denying 14-year olds school tests which they themselves would probably fail?

The Prime Minister: That is an unusual position to adopt on pay rises and not one generally taken by head teachers or by anyone else. I very much regret that there is difficulty carrying these tests forward. They are very much in the interests of the children and it is in the interests of the testing system, which the head teachers support, that the tests should go ahead this year so that Sir Ron Dearing can deal with the difficulties with them.

Mr. John Smith: Can the Prime Minister tell the House why Ministers in his Administration have seen it as part of their duty as Ministers of the Crown to intervene on behalf of Mr. Asil Nadir, a person charged with serious offences and now a fugitive from justice?

The Prime Minister: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given me the opportunity to correct a misassumption in his mind. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office has explained that he raised certain matters with the Attorney-General following an approach from a constituent of his who was then an adviser to Mr. Nadir. My hon. Friend was originally approached 18 months ago, before he became a Minister, and it is perfectly proper within the "Questions of Procedures for Ministers" that Ministers are free to make their views about constituency matters known to the responsible Minister, either by interview or in correspondence. As I understand it, that is what my hon. Friend did.

Mr. John Smith: Can the Prime Minister confirm that Mr. Nadir is not and was not a constituent of either the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) or the President of the Board of Trade? Is not it strange that a man charged with serious offences should be considered so important that Ministers make personal approaches on his behalf to the Attorney-General, who is responsible for his prosecution?

The Prime Minister: No doubt in the hubbub, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear what I said to him. I made it clear that my hon. Friend approached the Attorney-General—following an approach from a constituent who was then an adviser to Mr. Nadir—18 months ago. That was entirely proper. Let me equally make it clear—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and hear both questions and answers.

The Prime Minister: Let me equally make it clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, so that there is no misunderstanding, that I am assured by my hon. Friend that he has had no financial involvement with Mr. Nadir, his companies or his advisers, either before he became a Minister or since. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that.

Mr. John Smith: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he thinks it was appropriate behaviour for a Minister to


give a watch to Mr. Nadir inscribed with a very supportive inscription, to put it mildly? Does the Prime Minister think that that is the way that he wants Ministers in his Administration to behave? Was not it bound to undermine the work of the Serious Fraud Office in pursuing financial crime? Is not it the case, as the country clearly understands, that this is a shoddy, unseemly affair that does no credit to this Administration?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was unwise. I think that that is the view taken by my hon. Friend and he has said so in public. I know my hon. Friend recognises that, with hindsight, it would have been better if he had not done it. It was a misjudgment, but it is not a hanging offence.

Sir Dudley Smith: In view of the experiences of many Warwickshire residents over recent months, particularly in my constituency area, is my right hon. Friend aware that they are looking to him to introduce good and effective legislation to curb the so-called new age travellers? Will he tell us what urgency he is applying to that particular problem?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises a problem which has been faced in many parts of the country. It is one that I hope and believe we will be able to deal with in the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. Khabra: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Khabra: Will the Prime Minister personally condemn the speech made by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill)? It has done a great deal of damage to good race relations in this country and it has also encouraged the fascists and racists to indulge in destructive activities. I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to give a positive answer to the community.

The Prime Minister: Neither of the epithets used by the hon. Gentleman applies to my hon. Friend and I hope that he will recognise that. I have not read all the speech to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I have read some of the reports of it, which I understand were not accurate. On the day that it was published it did not represent my views or those of the Government. My commitment and that of the Government to good race relations is well known. I welcome without reservation the positive contributions which all communities make to life in this country and, as long as we maintain firm but fair immigration controls and refuse to tolerate racial discrimination, we shall keep the race relations which have been steadily improving over recent years, much to my pleasure. I hope and expect them to continue to improve.

Economy

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received about the state of the economy; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I have received a number of representations on the economy. There is growing evidence that recovery is under way across a broad front.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend praise north-west exporters such as Rotocold in my constituency, which has gained record export sales and cut local unemployment to below the national average? Is not that in stark contrast to the failed union-dominated policies of the Labour party, which saw unemployment in the north-west double between 1974 and 1979?

The Prime Minister: That is true. Unemployment is always a tragedy when it occurs and it has occurred under every Labour Government we have seen in this country. I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the company in his constituency. It is good news. I understand that it has had more export orders recently and that will add to jobs in the region. There is no doubt that British manufacturing industry is now exporting at record levels and I welcome that. It is not unrelated to the fact that we now have policies of low inflation, low business taxation and trade union reform which have removed many of the difficulties in management that so bedevilled firms in the 1960s and 1970s.

Engagements

Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Byers: Will the Prime Minister say whether he wishes to see shipbuilding continue on Tyneside? If he does, will he confirm that the Royal Navy work presently at Swan Hunter will be completed there and that full Government backing will be given in order to secure vital export orders? Is the Prime Minister aware that if his Government stand to one side and do nothing, we shall witness the death of shipbuilding on Tyneside and the loss of thousands of jobs as a result?

The Prime Minister: I know of the hon. Gentleman's concerns about Swan Hunter, which are shared by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), all of whom have made representations to me about it in recent weeks. I cannot confirm the details that the hon. Gentleman seeks today, but I hope that the firm will be able to put itself in a position in which it will be able to continue. That depends on its being able to obtain and produce orders at a price that the market will pay.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As one of the most helpful means of helping the growing army of unemployed in Europe would be to conclude the GATT discussions and as the Prime Minister has played such a positive and helpful role in that, will he explain to the country why the EC is being so difficult about concluding those discussions? It could bring down unemployment and put people throughout Europe back to work.

The Prime Minister: I think that I have some news that my hon. Friend will undoubtedly welcome. I understand that the French Minister for European Affairs has announced at today's meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council that France will be accepting the agreement on oil seeds, signed between the European Community and the United States last November. It is an issue which I discussed at my two meetings with the French Prime


Minister last month. I am delighted at the decision that has been made. I hope that it will enable the Community to go forward to other agreements relating to the Uruguay round. Although that is a separate issue from the oil seeds agreement, such an agreement was a necessary prelimin-ary. It now removes one of the road blocks to a comprehensive GATT agreement.

Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Beith: Is the Prime Minister beginning to regret that his reshuffle a couple of weeks ago was not more extensive and did not see the departure of Ministers responsible for education, shipbuilding and undue and extensive assistance to those who give large donations to the Conservative party? Does he realise that it is likely that the next reshuffle will involve himself?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the substantive part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is no.

Mrs. Lait: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Lait: Will my right hon. Friend remind trade unionists that the hard-won democracy that they have achieved over the past 14 years is thanks to Conservative legislation? Will he tell them that only the Conservative party not only believes in but has legislated for one member, one vote?

The Prime Minister: It is certainly the case that we have more luck with trade union reform than the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) does.

Throughout the 1980s the right hon. and learned Gentleman voted against each and every one of our reforms to strengthen the rights of individual trade union members and the Labour party still wants to oppose rights for individual trade union members. While Labour Members continue to hold those views we will continue to sit on this side of the House.

Mr. Hume: Given that this generation is going through the greatest economic revolution in the history of the world—the technological, telecommunications and transport revolutions—and that the wealth of society is being created by fewer people, does the Prime Minister agree that, logically, the state should be taking a greater role in the welfare of people instead of moving in the opposite direction towards the survival of the fittest and the law of the jungle? Given that they have already privatised heat and light, is there any truth in the rumour that the Government are about to privatise fresh air?

The Prime Minister: I have news for the hon. Gentleman. It is not owned by the Government and does not need privatisation.

Mr. Hume: What about water?

The Prime Minister: On his earlier point, the hon. Gentleman clearly overlooked the 67 per cent. real terms increase in social security, the additional uprating next year of £2·5 billion, the extra expenditure on benefits of 40 per cent., the exemption for people who cannot pay council tax, the fact that the Government, unlike our Labour predecessors, continue to pay the pensioners' bonus and the increase in consumer goods for the bottom 10 per cent. of the income scale. Those changes were made under this Government because of our economic success and social concerns.

ABB Transportation Ltd. (Redundancies)

Mr. Hugh Bayley (York): I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the 896 redundancies announced yesterday by ABB Transportation Ltd." [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I would appreciate it if hon. Members leaving would do so quietly so that we might continue our business. I hope that hon. Members will show courtesy to the hon. Gentleman who now has the Floor.

Mr. Bayley: The redundancies were at the company's York, Derby and Crewe works.
Those shocking redundancies are the direct result of an explosive mixture of two Government policies—the cut in rail investment to the lowest level in real terms since 1948 and the hiatus caused by rail privatisation.
The redundancies are not an unlucky accident; they have not come out of the blue. I have been warning about them for many months, as have my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
The Railway Industry Association told the Transport Select Committee:
We are staring annihilation in the face.
In its report, the Select Committee said:
We call upon the Government to address as a matter of extreme urgency the problem of the hiatus in railway investment…to ensure that sufficient manufacturing capacity survives.
The House should be debating urgently whether the Government wish this country to retain the ability to manufacture trains, or whether they simply intend to buy them in from abroad, putting yet greater strain on the country's balance of payments.
ABB has done all it can to make itself competitive and attract orders. It has invested £20 million in the York works and made it the most modern railway factory in Europe. The work force have done all they can to improve the qualitys and competitiveness of the work. They have created a world-beating facility, and ABB is the last true British train manufacturer. Other companies compete against it, but they do not build the whole train; they buy in the body shells from abroad and assemble components to them.
If we want to retain the ability to build trains, the country must retain ABB. In the autumn statement last year, the Chancellor promised £150 million of leasing finance to save the rail industry. In March, I met the Minister for Public Transport—whom I see in his place —and he promised a decision by Easter, but that decision has not come. It could, however, have saved these jobs. At the Conservative party conference, the President of the Board of Trade said that he would intervene before breakfast and before lunch. Which meal will he skip to intervene now?
The House urgently needs a debate so that the Secretary of State for Transport can make a speedy announcement about who will get the orders from the £150 million, thus saving jobs in my constituency and in those of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South.

Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said and I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

FISHING VESSELS (SAFETY)

That the Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements) (Grants) Scheme 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1325) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

SHELLFISH POISONING

That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1338) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

CIVIL DEFENCE

That the draft Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) (Scotland) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

CHANNEL TUNNEL

That the draft Channel Tunnel (International Arrangements) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

Points of Order

Mr. Mark Fisher: On a point of order. Madam Speaker. Have you received today any request by the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement on the way in which British Coal is handling the redundancies arising out of the closure of pits last week, particularly the way in which it is handling the cases of men who are on the brink of qualifying for early retirement?
There are men among those who are redundant who, having working for 35 years or more—all their working lives—are in some cases one, two or three weeks away from qualifying, at the age of 55, for early retirement, and British Coal is not allowing them to work out those few days in order to qualify. That is in marked contrast to the very constructive way in which British Steel at Shelton Bar and elsewhere in the 1970s tried to co-operate with the men, and allowed them to work out their time. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade has asked you for permission to make a statement to the House on this important matter.

Madam Speaker: I responded to the hon. Gentleman yesterday. A Minister does not seek my permission to make a statement, and I must make that constantly clear to the House. However. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that no Minister has told me today that he is seeking to make a statement.

Ms Joan Walley: Further to that point, Madam Speaker. May I bear out what my hon. Friend has just said and tell the House that, from Stoke-on-Trent, we have written to the President of the Board of Trade and asked him to take a personal interest in the way in which British Coal is not operating a proper industrial relations policy. Can you advise me how it is possible to bring this matter to his attention when we receive no replies to the letters that we have sent?

Madam Speaker: From what the hon. Lady has told me, representations appear to have been made already direct to the President of the Board of Trade. It is not a point of order for the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you not think that it is a very odd state of affairs that the House of Commons is supposed to reflect the issues that occur in Britain day by day, yet we have a President of the Board of Trade who spends more time consulting about Asil Nadir and how to get him off the hook and does not care tuppence about closing pits and the consequences for the thousands of miners who are thrown out of work? Why is he not brought to the Dispatch Box?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the President of the Board of Trade has not indicated to you that he is coming along to make a statement, has he apologised for his gross incompetence?

Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for me.

Infertility Services

Ms Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a duty on district heath authorities to secure the provision of infertility services within the National Health Service; and for connected purposes.
The causes of infertility may be complex and in some cases cannot be explained. Whatever the cause, however, the emotional and psychological impact of the failure to conceive should not be underestimated.
There are many, often highly successful, treatments available for infertility. However, on a national basis the level of service provision and availability of infertility treatment has never been established. Recent changes in the structure and funding of the national health service have resulted in increased competition for resources and highlighted the emphasis placed on value for money for individual treatments.
Given that infertility treatment has often been seen as outside the main stream of national health service care, owing in part to poor understanding of the condition and of the treatment available, it is possible in the current climate that levels of provision may remain static or, unfortunately, decrease.
When we talk of infertility, we talk of thousands and thousands of men and women living in our constituencies. Let me give an example of the type of problem that is faced by couples.
Mary is 37 years old. She has been to see her GP with her husband Jack, who is in the Navy. They have been married for 14 years and have never managed to have a child. In the early 1980s, they put it down to the fact that Jack was always away. It has always been difficult to sort out the problem—[Interruption.]— this is a serious point — because they have never lived anywhere for any length of time.
Four years ago, they saw a gynaecologist, who diagnosed polycystic ovary disease in Mary and oligospermia in Jack. The typical features of the syndrome for women include disturbance of the menstrual pattern and infertility. Fortunately, many women can be treated for this syndrome. Men like Jack, if they are unable to be treated for infertility, will end up with a choice of agreeing to artificial insemination of his own sperm or that of a donor.
In this country, there are 12 million women of childbearing age. Some couples will choose not to have children, but the vast majority will do otherwise; 600,000 men and 600,000 women will want, but be unable, to have children. For them, infertility can be an absolute tragedy. Each of us, as a Member of Parliament, will have an average of 1,000 couples in our constituency who are unable to conceive, and require help. Some of this help is very simple: for instance, advice on the fertile time of the month, and general health advice about smoking and diet. Men who smoke produce fewer sperm and have more damaged sperm, and those who drink heavily also experience difficulties.
This advice can come from primary health care teams. The GP can do many of the investigations for infertility, and egg-stimulation treatment can be given in a partnership between the GP and local infertility units. A


course of egg-stimulation treatment, including ultrasound monitoring of egg production, can cost as little as £200 or £300 to solve the problem of infertility.
Some will need more complex treatment, of course, such as in vitro fertilisation or GIFT—gamete intrafallopian transfer—often known as test tube babies. Only 6,004 women had this treatment, which has been successful, between 1985 and 1990. Twenty times that number of women are waiting for the treatment but cannot get it.
For some, no treatment or help will be available, and adoption is paraded as the option. But there is often a long waiting list, and some areas may be reluctant to allow couples over the age of 35 to adopt babies.
Some people argue that infertility is not a health problem. That is to argue that the national health service should be re-titled the national sickness service. The "Health of the Nation" initiative has recognised a broad concept of health based on quality of life. For many infertile couples on whose lives infertility has such a profound effect, it is important to have access to treatment. For many couples, infertility is comparable to bereavement and major loss.
This Bill is not about test tube babies. I have given an example of the numerous forms of simple treatment which are available and which can be undertaken but which, in many parts of the country, are not available free through the national health service. The Bill will place a duty on health authorities to ensure that all areas of the country provide a comprehensive service. After all, the national health service is supposed to be based on the principle of need and not of ability to pay.
What sort of infertility services do we want the NHS to provide? The Independent College of Health has just surveyed 174 purchasing authorities in Britain. Its survey reveals that only one in four pay for advanced treatment. Two thirds of infertility treatments sought by women have to be paid for in the private sector because they are simply not available under the national health service.
We must develop a rational universal service with equality of access. Too often in the NHS, we veer from boom to bust. A proper planned service with the benefit of the intervention of organisations such as the Audit Commission is essential to ensure a comprehensive and efficient service. A clear first step would be the definition by the Department of Health of the clinical services required to be provided by local and central specialist units.
My Bill is not just about infertility. It goes to the heart of the fundamental principle of the national health service —that it treats people on the basis of their need. We want an NHS that asks not, "How can I help you?" but, "What can I do for you? What is it that you want?" Too often in recent years, the champions in our society have been the takers, not the givers. The strong have become stronger and the weak weaker.
The 600,000 men and women suffering from infertility problems have very real needs. Health care should be provided on the basis of an understanding of the facts. Health care policy should be developed for the benefit of many, not based on knee-jerk reactions to unusual cases.
I hope that the House will allow the Bill to proceed this afternoon so that we can make a clear statement to infertile couples in this country that we care about their needs and will fight for their rights.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Dawn Primarolo, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. Mike Watson and Mrs. Audrey Wise.

INFERTILITY SERVICES

Ms Dawn Primarolo accordingly presented a Bill to place a duty on district health authorities to secure the provision of infertility services within the National Health Service; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 206.]

Northern Ireland (Prevention of Terrrorism)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 20th May, be approved.
This House is the guarantor and guardian of all our liberties. When circumstances have so demanded, it has acted to qualify or curtail those liberties, but it has done so only when that was necessary to preserve our greater freedom. Even then, it has always acted jealously.
So it has been in recent years in the case of Northern Ireland. That is why the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 lapse unless continued at the end of each successive year. No one, I am sure, would wish the Act to be permanent. Equally, however, our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland must not be denied protection from terrorism by reason of some disproportionate reluctance on Parliament's part to recognise their special needs and circumstances. Therefore, it is necessary once again this year for us to examine the balance, as we customarily do when debating the continuation of these temporary provisions.
We have again—but, at his own request, for the last time—the benefit of a review by Lord Colville of Culross, QC. His experience in this work stretches back to 1987. He has addressed it with great industry, skill and clarity. His penetrating mind has been of invaluable service to successive Secretaries of State, by whom his forthright exposition and willingness to change his mind on occasion in the light of further experience, have been greatly appreciated. I record my sincere thanks for this work, including for his last report published on 26 May.
Before I turn to a consideration of the Act, and of Lord Colville's recommendations, I wish to remind the House of the Government's published aims. They are: to maintain the rule of law; to ensure that all the people of Northern Ireland are free to express their political opinions without inhibition or fear of discrimination or reprisal; to defend the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Northern Ireland against those who try to promote political objectives, including a change in the status of Northern Ireland, by violence or the threat of violence; and to create in Northern Ireland the conditions for a just, peaceful and prosperous society in which local people can exercise greater control over their own affairs.
So that those aims can be achieved, it is the first priority of the Government in Northern Ireland to eradicate terrorism from whichever section of the community it may come. There is no acceptable level of violence and, for so long as violence continues, it will be met with a firm and resolute response.
Those are our aims, and the responsibility for achieving them rests with me. Under the constitutional arrangements which apply in Northern Ireland, as in England, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who is my principal adviser, has operational independence. His annual report was published on 27 May and it is important that I let the House know of his words concerning the support that the RUC receives from the Government.
Launching his new report, the Chief Constable said:

When a terrorist outrage occurs, there is often a reaction suggesting that the handcuffs should be taken off the Police and the Army: that our hands should be untied from behind our backs. There are no restraints on the security forces, save those imposed by law and by the very nature of our democratic society. There is no political restraint stopping us from doing our duty or doing our best.

Mr. David Trimble: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I should like to make a little progress first, if I may.
The House will be reassured by the words of the Chief Constable. Just as importantly, so will the members of the RUC to whose Police Federation conference I quoted them this morning in Belfast, and so will the people of Northern Ireland. They are true words, and they needed to be said.
I hope that we shall read and hear no more, from people who should have known better, of that oft-repeated and deeply discouraging falsehood which the Chief Constable has so authoritatively exposed. The truth is that all lawful options remain open and available to the RUC to deal with a situation in which, to cite Lord Colville's words.
terrorists of all persuasions have perpetrated brutal and calculated murders and injuries.

Mr. Trimble: Will the Secretary of State give way now?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: If the hon. Gentleman feels that the cap fits, I will give way to him.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. He has referred to the release of the Chief Constable's report, to the Chief Constable's press conference and to the comments that he made in the report in which he has said that the Government have been supportive of his position.
At the press conference, the Chief Constable put forward several changes in the law which he considered to be necessary and desirable. I understand that those changes have been with the Northern Ireland Office for some time and are being blocked there. Will the Secretary of State please comment on that, and say whether he will be prepared to support the clauses which I tabled today to the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords], which give effect to some of the changes that the Chief Constable wants? Will he support them?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Nothing that the Chief Constable or anyone else proposes for amending the law in Northern Ireland is blocked. All proposals are considered carefully. it does not follow from that that each or even any proposal is accepted, but they are sensibly and carefully considered. The hon. Gentleman will have to bide his time to see what response the Government make to his proposals.
One option that remains available to me under the Act is the power to reintroduce internment. That power is dormant at present. To exercise that option would, of course, be a step of grave significance. None the less, its retention on the statute book—although it is not affected at all by this order—is essential. In the light of that, the Government readily endorse Lord Colville's prime recommendation that the temporary provisions of the Act should be renewed for a further year.
Among other things, the Act provides modifications to the criminal justice system, including the establishment of single-judge courts for trying terrorist-type offences; arrest, search and seizure powers for the RUC and the


Army, together with the power to close roads; certain specific offences such as belonging to a proscribed organisation; and valuable powers directed against terrorist finances. It also contains significant safeguards for those who may be affected by the special provisions.
We are sure that the continuation of the temporary provisions is necessary to give the security forces and the criminal justice system the necessary powers to bring terrorists from all sides to justice. They are also needed to send to the Provisional IRA, the UDA, the UVF and all other such groups the clear message that the Government are determined to eliminate terrorism. Since the last debate, I have used section 28 to proscribe the UDA. Once those who seek to subvert democracy by taking life and destroying property have been defeated—but only then —the provisions of the Act will no longer be necessary and can thankfully be allowed to lapse.
Until that time comes, the powers that the Act contains will, under a Conservative Administration, continue to be available for use, resolutely and appropriately, for the benefit of all the long-suffering people of Northern Ireland. They impose heavy responsibilities on the security forces. I continue to be greatly impressed by the discipline, courage and self-control of the security forces in what are often very trying circumstances.
It is no doubt inevitable that there will be occasional lapses, and I strongly endorse, as do the Chief Constable and the GOC, Lord Colville's perception of the damage that is done to community relationships whenever conduct fall short of the high standards demanded. I am therefore particularly pleased to note Lord Colville's view that, in general, the sensitivity of the RUC and the Army has been greater than ever in 1992. I have no doubt at all that the security forces in Northern Ireland deserve the warm congratulations and gratitude of the entire House.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that the whole House agrees with the final comment made by my right hon. and learned Friend.
Is it possible for him to assure us that the expertise and experience of the RUC is shared with special branch and detectives in Great Britain? Obviously, it is difficult to establish a person's innocence, and it is certainly wrong to try to show someone's guilt, on the Floor of the House.
Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend could arrange for one of his colleagues to respond to the inquiries by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and myself, as well as Amnesty International, in the case of John Matthews. I will not ask for a detailed response now, but I ask him to arrange for the appropriate person to respond to the inquiries that have been made.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am aware that my hon. Friend, from his experience in Northern Ireland, will know that there is close liaison between the two forces, and that undoubtedly extends to the case to which he referred. I take heed of the point that he made on that person's behalf.
Lord Colville reports that the Act does not impinge on the majority of the law-abiding public to any great extent. Of course, that is not to say that it can be renewed by the

House merely as a matter of course. In last year's debate, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) vouchsafed that the Labour party recognised
that some emergency legislation may he necessary"— [Official Report, 10 June 1992: Vol. 209. c. 377.]
Unfortunately, he did not condescend to give. the House any particulars. We hope that he will fill that gap today. Last year, he opposed the order and voted against the continuation of the temporary provisions because the Act contains the power to order detention or internment. So whatever emergency provisions Labour Members recognised might be necessary, they voted to discontinue everything covered by the order because they did not like detention.
The trouble with that specious cover for embarrassment was that the order did not touch detention—nor does it do so today. A separate order would be needed before the detention provisions could be activated. So we hope to hear today that the Labour party will support this continuance order for legislation necessitated by the continuing emergency.
It is customary at this stage to review the tragic landmarks of violence which make the Act necessary. Last year, there were 75 murders by republican and so-called loyalist terrorists. There have been 32 murders already this year to 3 June. They continue to illustrate how callous, barbaric and brutal terrorism can be.
The House will remember that, on 14 November last year, three men—one an ex-RAF pilot—were harmlessly spending an afternoon in a bookmaker's in Belfast when they were shot dead. On 19 November, Lance-Corporal Ian Warnock was waiting with his young child in his car for his wife to come out of a factory in Portadown when he was shot and killed. On 3 January this year, Dermott and Patrick Shields were murdered in their family grocery store in County Tyrone. The murder led to Julie Statham, Dermott's fiancee, tragically taking her own life. On 17 January, Sharon McKenna, visiting the flat of a pensioner who had just come out of hospital, was murdered.
Those are examples of deaths. There were also numerous attempted murders and examples of intimidation and extortion. Between 20 and 23 May, the Provisional IRA carried out four bomb attacks, two in Belfast, one in Portadown and one in Magherafelt, causing an estimated £22 million of damage, and damaging schools —one for the mentally handicapped—and hundreds of private dwellings. The existence of terrorists prepared to perpetrate such crimes explains why the Act is still needed. It has, indeed, already contributed to the arrest and charging of one of those alleged to have been responsible for the attack on Magherafelt.
The examples that I have given paint a grim but authentic picture. But the work of the security forces has had much success. Far from them operating at will and with impunity—as is sometimes untruthfully and damagingly pretended—terrorists have continued to be caught and brought to justice. In 1992, 405 people were charged with terrorist-related offences, including 101 with murder or attempted murder—a figure which represents a three-year high. As at 23 May this year, 148 people had been charged with such offences. Last year; 194 firearms and 49 rockets and mortar launchers were recovered by the RUC and the Army.
As at 1 June this year, 100 firearms and 24 rocket and mortar launchers had been found. In addition, Since the middle of March, four bombs containing some 300 kg of


explosives have been intercepted in transit. There have also been substantial finds of fertiliser. which is a component of home-made explosive, and both republican and loyalist gunmen have been captured en route to carry out their disgusting crimes. Here I pay tribute to the co-operation between the RUC and the Garda Siochana in the Republic, which has never been higher.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State agree that statistics mean little unless they are placed in context? I am sure that he recalls the statistics for 1981 to 1985. The number of terrorist-related killings fell from 101 to 54—a decrease of 45 per cent.—the number of terrorist shootings fell from 1,142 to 237—a decrease of 80 per cent.—and the tonnage of terrorist bombs fell from 529 to 215—a decrease of 60 per cent.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will also be aware that, in the past seven years, the number of terrorist-related killings has risen by 50 per cent., the number of terrorist shootings has risen by 125 per cent. and the volume of terrorist bombs has risen by 70 per cent. How does he explain that increase since the end of 1985? Does it suggest any tremendous co-operation with the Irish Republic since that time?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have already paid tribute to the co-operation between the two police forces, which is extremely important. There are others to whom the hon. Gentleman should address the question of why increased terrorist crimes have been committed.
What matters—this is not the only thing that matters, far from it—are the successes of the RUC, most notably in bringing people to justice and in intercepting people bent upon these revolting crimes and preventing them from carrying them out. That is the context in which I introduced the figures. I know of the hon. Gentleman's opposition to the Anglo-Irish agreement. He is perfectly entitled to make whatever point he wishes in the context of varying statistics, and no doubt he will find an opportunity to do that during the debate, if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker.
I now turn to the specific recommendations in Lord Colville's report, and will deal first with remand times. Lord Colville rightly draws attention once more to the problem of delays on remand. He says that the matter is one for real concern, and I agree. He also makes clear the difficulties entailed in tackling the problem. Nevertheless, I am determined that we should make continued and substantial efforts to reduce remand delays wherever possible.
In the debate on last year's continuance order, I announced the introduction of a scheme aimed at reducing and monitoring the time defendants spend in custody before they are tried on indictment for scheduled offences —the cases in which delays have been longest. We set demanding targets of 38 weeks from first remand to committal, and 14 weeks from committal to arraignment.
The scheme began on 1 July 1992. The agencies involved in the prosecution process have embarked on its operation with great vigour, establishing the new machinery in which they work together to track the progress of cases, and give particular attention to those where targets are in danger of being overrun.
It is too early to reach firm conclusions on the results, but the first cases entering the scheme have only recently

begun to reach their first deadline. A more satisfactory assessment will be possible in the light of a full year's operation of the scheme. Then we shall be able to address Lord Colville's proposal for a new scheme of time limits, statutory or otherwise, to cover all those on remand in custody for indictable offences. That is an important factor.
That, we think will be the time to decide whether the existing section 8, which many would see as too constricting, should be allowed to lapse. We are in the meantime prolonging the existing scheme. Lord Colville recommended that the scheme be extended to cover soldiers or policemen released into military or police custody on bail under section 3(6) of the Act. I can now announce to the House that the scheme has already been so extended.
Lord Colville also brings out the serious delays that may occur after arraignment. The Lord Chancellor has been very conscious of this problem, and his recent appointment of a further High Court judge reflects this concern.
The powers of arrest and detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act have continued to play a vital part in bringing dangerous criminals to justice. They have also been the focus of criticism. Some of it has been entirely disinterested, but some less so, perhaps because of the holding centres' vital role.
The Government have, however, paid careful attention to all the criticism. Accordingly, since the last debate I have appointed Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC as independent commissioner to monitor conditions and procedures in the holding centres. He is fulfilling this function with a will and is completely independent. He has been making unannounced visits, and he is likely to publish his first annual report in December. I suggest we wait to see what it contains.
Additionally, I am about to lay draft codes to cover the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons detained under the PTA. These will be based closely on the existing codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I hope to see them in operation during the autumn.
These two initiatives should go a long way towards reassuring people about the operation of the holding centres.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Secretary of State has referred many times to the report of Lord Colville. On holding centres, has the right hon. Gentleman any comments to make on Lord Colville's comments about complaints made by people who are arrested under the EPA and the PTA and held in such centres? The right hon. and learned Gentleman should refer the House to the figures collected by Lord Colville, because they are extremely interesting and speak for themselves.
In 1992, not a single one out of 395 official complaints made by people held under emergency legislation was sustained. Are the police in the north of Ireland, or anywhere else on this earth, as lily-white and squeaky-clean as that? The Secretary of State should bear that in mind and possibly do us the courtesy of reading out what Lord Colville said about a police complaints commission that is not working properly.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman invites me to do the House the courtesy of reading out a report which should, of course, be required reading for anyone taking part in the debate. I do not doubt that it has been well studied. I shall, of course, deal in a moment with what Lord Colville said about the police complaints commission and the way in which complaints are dealt with.
I should like, first, to talk about video recording, a matter of considerable importance, interest and controversy. Lord Colville suggests that we reconsider the possibility of the video recording of interviews to supplement the existing arrangements involving the use of closed circuit television.
I have often discussed this with the Chief Constable in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, where terrorists, as the whole House probably recognises, are under strict instructions from their organisations not to co-operate with the authorities in any way at all. It is the Chief Constable's firm view that such a move to video recording would inhibit still further the chances of lawfully getting information to secure convictions and protect life.
The keeping of a permanent record of interviews, with the fears of disclosure that it would engender in the minds of those interviewed, is seen by the Chief Constable as likely to tilt the balance too far in favour of the terrorist organisation. It would, he believes, put at risk those who might otherwise have felt willing to co-operate with police investigations.
All the same, in the light of the strength with which Lord Colville expresses his recommendation for a reconsideration of this issue, I have invited Sir Hugh Annesley to set out for my benefit his considered assessment of its merit. For my part, it is fair to say that I am not currently persuaded that the introduction of video recording would be in the overall interests of justice.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State agree that the major inhibiting factor is the question in the mind of an accused person that he has no control over the possible publication, at some future date, of the evidence which he has given?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is the single most important point on that side of the argument. There is a fear that procedures of disclosure or discovery in other criminal or civil proceedings, which may have been brought into existence for that very purpose, may lead to the tape being reported. That is in people's minds.
I shall not leave the subject of the holding centres without mentioning Lord Colville's comments on alleged intimidation of defence lawyers. I warmly endorse his conclusions. If such intimidation takes place—and without particulars I cannot know whether a single case is proved—it must cease immediately. Those who claim to have evidence should, as Lord Colville says, put it to the Royal Ulster Constabulary in a form capable of investigation. If they feel unable to do that, I believe that they should desist from allegations that they are not prepared to substantiate, but which have the effect of undermining confidence in a vital part of the criminal justice system.
The RUC, supported by the Army, is there to serve the entire community. It is right, therefore, that there should be avenues of complaint open to those who feel that they have been badly treated by any member of the security forces.
The Independent Commission for Police Complaints has been established to oversee complaints against the police. Since our previous debate, I have appointed Mr. David Hewitt as the independent assessor under section 60 of the Act to keep under review the operation of the Army complaints procedures. He, like Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, is entirely independent of Government and is required to publish an annual report which will be laid before the House. His first report is expected around the end of this year.
No complaints resolution system can ever be perfect in the sense of getting to the truth in every case. We shall continue to look at ways of improving the systems in use in Northern Ireland, but I believe that our systems are as accessible and thorough as any in the world. Only a small group of progressive nations at present provide for civilian oversight of police investigation into complaints. The work of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints is internationally recognised as providing independence without compromising the effectiveness of investigations, and I am grateful to it.
Lord Colville alludes to the Home Secretary's proposals for reform of police disciplinary systems. I shall shortly be asking for comments on whether those proposals would be appropriate for applications in Northern Ireland. That is relevant to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).

Mr. John Hume: We are discussing confidence in the security forces and the Government. The Secretary of State is no doubt aware of the Nelson case. Mr. Nelson was a member of the intelligence services of the Government, he joined a paramilitary organisation in Northern Ireland, was found guilty of murder and was, at the time, involved in the importation of arms from South Africa with which people are currently being killed, including some of the cases listed today—that is all public knowledge. Does not the Secretary of State think that, in the interests of the confidence of the community, there is a grave need for an independent public inquiry into what has become known as the Nelson affair?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The same issue was raised when we had a debate last year on 10 June. Mr. Nelson pleaded guilty to—I think—five counts of conspiracy to murder, not to murder. After criminal proceedings, he was sentenced to many sentences of 10 years imprisonment, which he is now serving. I believe that that has sufficiently disposed of the matter according to the processes of law.
I am grateful to Lord Colville for the attention that he has given in his report to the Government's innovative response to the challenge represented by terrorist fund raising. We agree with him that that is a most important aspect of the Government's programme for the defeat of terrorism, and one which affords significant opportunities. Terrorist racketeering has become a dangerously entrenched evil, and we are determined to overcome it.

Mr. David Alton: Has the Secretary of State been able to make any progress in the vital sphere of cutting the funding—the lifeline on which terrorist organisations rely to carry on with their activities? Have there been any successful prosecutions of any of the groups involved? Have any of the assets of those involved been confiscated?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am just about to come to that subject. I do not prosecute those people: they are prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland, who is completely independent. But I am about to mention the terrorist finance unit that we have put in place, and the legislation that we have introduced.
The provisions in both the Prevention of Terrorism Act and Emergency Provisions Act are being further enhanced by the Criminal Justice Bill, now in Committee. In particular, the Bill will make it harder for terrorists to launder and manipulate the funds that they need to carry out their acts of violence, and the proceeds of the crimes they use to raise those funds.
I can understand why Lord Colville proposes consolidating the body of anti-racketeering legislation into a single Act, which is something I shall be considering further. I also share the implicit impatience of Lord Colville and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for those provisions to be seen to bear fruit in criminal proceedings. I do know, however, of the meticulous care that is needed in the preparation of such cases.
Meanwhile, the initiatives are beginning to pay dividends, although it is widely recognised that racketeering is such a deep-rooted and endemic problem that it cannot be solved quickly. We recognise the significant opportunities that exist for further action in that sphere. We agree with Lord Colville that the focused effort by the RUC and others to curtail all forms of terrorist fund raising should continue to enjoy a high priority in the allocation of resources.
In order to assist the Royal Ulster Constabulary, we have set in place a special terrorist finance unit, and there is a special division within the RUC—C1(3)—consisting of people with specialist knowledge and experience whose work is dedicated to uncovering and stopping that source of funds for the terrorist organisations.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I apologise for stressing the point, but does not the fact that no convictions with regard to the confiscation of terrorist. funds have occurred in two years suggest that the measures are insufficient? That seems to show that much more must be done in this vital area.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: As I have told my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in these matters, we keep the issue under review, and we believe that there are ways in which the law can perhaps further be improved. But people are versatile in their critical faculties.
If one takes a case before it is fully investigated—as my hon. Friend knows, these are complex and difficult cases —and it fails through insufficient investigation, one gets stick for that. If, on the other hand, one takes a considerable time to make use of new legislation before starting proceedings—and there can be no convictions before proceedings are started—there is natural impatience. That must be borne philosophically by those who carry responsibility for such issues.
It is an essential part of the Emergency Provisions Act that, wherever practicable and fair, compensation should be paid to individuals who have suffered loss or damage to, or interference with, their private rights of property as a result of the security forces carrying out their duties under the Act. Large sums of money are paid out in that way, and all those concerned are eligible, even those who may

have connections with proscribed organisations. I want to see whether that aspect of public expenditure would benefit from closer auditing.
Lord Colville makes some further recommendations in that area—notably, that there should be a means of compensation for those whose businesses are affected by the security forces, for example, having to close off a road on a sensitive interface or to give better protection for a vulnerable facility. I sympathise with those who are affected. I shall see whether it is possible to devise and implement a fair and practicable scheme which would help them, but that cannot be done quickly.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I wish to link the two matters about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken—those of racketeering and compensation. I have written several times to the Minister responsible for security in Northern Ireland about the fact that many people have been prepared to give evidence to the security forces and to stand by that evidence in the courts to show that extortion has taken place.
But those people immediately come under threat from terrorist organisations, as a result of which they have to close down their businesses, move home and often leave the Province altogether. They lose substantially in financial terms, but under existing legislation they cannot be compensated. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is consolidating legislation in relation to racketeering and extortion, will he include a provision that permits compensation in those cases?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have strong sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. It is a painful and important dilemma. I have taken note of his remarks and will hear them in mind.
I have nearly concluded my speech. I apologise for having taken so long, but I have given way quite a lot. Our approach to Lord Colville's recommendations illustrates our intention, and that of the RUC and the Army, that the powers contained in the Act shall be operated firmly but with the maximum sensitivity. In the process of eliminating terrorism, many difficult decisions must be taken, and an accurate analysis must be made in each case.
Where security measures react against the amenities and convenience of the public—as they often do—the circumstances always have one thing in common. They are the result of activities waged by small and unrepresentative minorities of the people of Northern Ireland, and they reflect our desire to see this pestilence got rid of once and for all.
It is our primary aim to secure the elimination of terrorism. The people of Northern Ireland need to have confidence not only in the fairness, impartiality and sensitivity of our security policy and of the actions of the security forces—all those things are important—but in their effectiveness for dealing with the men of violence.
There will be no yielding to the terrorists. All the options open to a civilised state need to be available for use against them. They are available, and we intend them to continue to be available. Resolution and judgment must go hand in hand as the task of eliminating terrorism is carried forward, until the powers contained in the Act will no longer be needed. Meanwhile, and in the hope that this year the Labour party will do its duty, I commend the order warmly to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I require no lessons in my duty from the Secretary of State, who refused to prosecute policemen accused of perverting the course of justice. I join him, however, in passing on our goodwill and appreciation to Lord Colville for the work that he has done over the years to examine the operation of both these Acts. He has shown great diligence, and he has always respected the confidence of people from many different walks of life who have told him of their experience of and attitudes towards the Acts. He has meticulously approached the detail rather than the generality of statements made about the legislation. We applaud what he has done and regret that he feels it necessary to go on to fresh pastures.
It is unfortunate that so many of the important recommendations that Lord Colville made to improve the legislation have not been accepted by the Government.
The Opposition strongly support all that the Government have done in the area of terrorist financing. However, we believe with Lord Colville—we welcome what the Secretary of State said about this—that all this legislation should be consolidated. The laundering of terrorist money or of Mafia money or of other criminally gained money should come under the general criminal law of the land in a Criminal Justice Act, and should be subject to permanent legislation, not to emergency powers Acts or prevention of terrorism Acts. The principles and issues at stake are much the same, no matter who commits the crimes or attempts to launder the money.
I share the keeness expressed by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that the legislation should have early results in the courts. I also appreciate the Secretary of State's point about the difficulties of ensuring that cases are cast iron before they are brought before the judges. A number of City fraud cases have fallen because of a failure to provide the court with precise and direct evidence in a manner that will convince a judge that the case should go to a jury, or in a manner to enable a jury to reach a proper conclusion.
Turning to more contentious matters, I must point out that these annual renewal orders have unfortunately become a tradition in the House. Emergency powers originally granted as temporary measures have now existed for more than 20 years. This year, there have already been depressingly high levels of injuries, deaths and destruction in Northern Ireland—the Secretary of State read out a sad and moving catalogue. All communities have been affected by the activities of paramilitaries—loyalist and republican. We must all emphasise that there would be no justification for any emergency legislation were these groups to renounce violence and stop the killing.
This debate is an important opportunity to consider the security system in Northern Ireland. We have heard what the Secretary of State regards as new initiatives, some of which we regard as rather tame.
Like the Secretary of State, I wish to take this opportunity to extend the Opposition's support and to commend the work of the security forces, the prison service and the judiciary in seeking to uphold impartially the rule of law, often in demanding and dangerous circumstances. We also welcome—as did the Secretary of State—the continued high level of co-operation between the Garda Siochana and the Royal Ulster Constabulary,

and the Republic's decision to close loopholes in the extradition law, although we believe that both Governments are still making insufficient use of their respective criminal law jurisdiction Acts. Those Acts are the last remnant of the Sunningdale agreements that we have.
Although Labour recognises that there may well be a need for emergency powers to deal with the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland, we nevertheless cannot support the order while the power of internment remains on the statute book and while the Government still refuse to accept so many of Lord Colville's recommendations. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 has granted the security forces considerable latitude; it has stretched the boundaries of the law almost beyond the limits of what should be acceptable in a democracy. The power of internment represents an infringement of such basic civil rights that its retention on the statute book is utterly unacceptable to the Labour party. It is no good the Secretary of State saying that he would to come before Parliament to reintroduce the power; it is true that he would have to lay an order before the House, but the internment would already have taken place. Otherwise, what would be the point of giving notice of it to the people? The Secretary of State knows that his argument is specious.
The power of the executive to imprison without charge —let alone trial—undermines the very basis of any free society, and thus can serve only to strengthen the paramilitaries. Such a power should have no place in a democratic society: it represents a defeat for the principle of the rule of law, and therefore a victory for the terrorists. Sir George Baker, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and the Government's own adviser, Lord Colville, have all called for an end to this power. We call on the Government again to heed the advice that those people considered it their duty to provide, and to put an end to the constant speculation that occurs after each terrible terrorist outrage over whether the Government should reintroduce internment. Such speculation simply plays into the hands of the paramilitaries; it increases apprehension in the community, and raises the levels of violence and alienation.
The impartial enforcement of the rule of law is particularly vital in Northern Ireland. Lack of confidence in the security forces and the justice system has only added to the sense of alienation that is felt by many in the region. Although the majority of members of the security forces maintain extremely high standards, there are still persistent reports that some are abusing their authority. That small minority is damaging both the reputation of the security forces in the communities that they police, and Britain's reputation abroad—as, sadly, I observed last week.
The Labour party is particularly concerned about allegations that suspects continue to face intimidation and harassment at holding centres. We recognise that the Government have attempted to address the problem with an independent commissioner for holding centres, but the appointment of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper to that post does not end the need for a lay visitors scheme, as recommended by the independent police authority. We hope that Sir Louis will consider an extension of the scheme.
The appointment does not go nearly far enough to allay fears of possible abuses at holding centres. The allegations that have been made only add to people's disillusionment


with Britain's justice system. Proper safeguards need to be introduced so that confidence in the security forces can be restored, and police officers can be properly protected against false accusations.
We have long believed that a major safeguard would be the introduction of video taping of interrogations. In his report, Lord Colville again called for the introduction of video taping in interrogation centres, stating:
Recording of the CCTV signal would do much to save precious manpower time, public money, the reputation of the RUC and, internationally of the UK. I urge the Government to re-examine the case for video-recording.
The Secretary of State's reply to that recommendation was rather strange. He cited the reasons given by the Chief Constable why we should not have TV recording. He said that he was not convinced that we should have television recording, but he is now asking for a report from the man who says that we should not have television recording so that he can judge the merits of the argument again. That makes no sense and is typical of why there is such despair in many quarters about the Government's attitude to some of these problems.

Mr. Maginnis: Does the hon. Gentleman understand my frustration, as someone who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, as I listen to him articulate the case for the protection of the suspect to the exclusion of the interests of the innocent people in Northern Ireland? If he is against such measures as internment and wants video taping, he is entitled to put the arguments, but is it not ridiculous that at present the suspect has total freedom not to co-operate? If a suspect is thought to be drunk in charge, guilty of tax fraud or if he is a bankrupt, he has to co-operate. If he is caught with a rifle and a mask in a car, he does not have to co-operate and, moreover, the police have to prove that he has that material with intent to commit a terrorist crime. Where is the justice for the law-abiding community and the security service?

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee with me when we considered the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. He will know that one clause deals with the issue of going ready to. commit a terrorist act. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point about carrying a rifle and balaclava would not apply.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, it is a duty to protect the reputation of the RUC throughout this country and the world.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman has never done that.

Mr. McNamara: That sort of comment, which the hon. Gentleman has made about many people on different occasions, is not worthy of him. Like every hon. Member, of whatever party and political persuasion, I support the security forces of this country in Northern Ireland in the impartial upholding of the rule of law. I do so absolutely and without qualification. However, I do not support them in partially upholding the rule of law.

Mr. Mallon: On the issue of going equipped to commit a crime, the key point is that the intention to commit a terrorist crime does not have to be proven. The issue is simply being caught with such materials, whatever they may be, away from one's abode. It would be different if the intention to commit a terrorist crime had to be proven. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) is wrong.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) puts the point more succinctly than I did.
Rather than merely asking for another report from the Chief Constable, the Government should at least introduce video taping for a trial period within Northern Ireland. We also believe that the Government should go further and introduce audio taping of interrogations. If there were any possibility in those circumstances of sensitive intelligence material being released, an application could be made to a judge in chambers for sensitive material not to be produced for the defence. Equally, such material could not be used in prosecuting that case. Therefore, it would be possible to introduce proper protection of video and audio recording in Northern Ireland. Both those reforms would strengthen the position of the security forces and weaken the terrorist's ability to challenge the validity of confession evidence.
The Secretary of State mentioned access to legal representation as a fundamental safeguard in any system of justice and spoke about the role of lawyers. I should like to examine briefly some of those points.
A fundamental safeguard to any system of justice is access to legal representation. This has been confirmed by United Nations basic principles on the role of lawyers, yet the Government are still allowing that basic right to be curtailed. We welcome Lord Colville's report that the length of delays in allowing access to solicitors are decreasing, but the 28 per cent. deferral rate in the first nine months of 1992 is still too high and brings into question the role of justice in our society.
I hope that the Minister of State will assure the House that the deferral rate will be reduced still further, and that in future he will adhere to Lord Colville's recommendations that the restriction of access to a solicitor after the initial 48 hours be monitored closely, as in theory at present it is possible for the authorities to allow a suspect access to a solicitor only three times during a seven-day detention.
Justifications for delay, however, also include allusions to the fact that solicitors cannot be trusted not to pass on information which they receive from their client. That lack of trust is not only insulting to the legal profession. but dangerous, as it implies that the solicitor is somehow connected to the same cause or organisation as his or her client.
Such a smear—guilt by association—may well bring the authorities into conflict with the United Nations basic principle on the role of lawyers which states:
lawyers shall not he identified with their clients or their clients' causes as a result of discharging their functions.
That insinuation appears to fit into the emerging pattern of alleged intimidation by the police of solicitors representing suspects charged with terrorist offences.
A number of such allegations are outlined in detail by the New York Lawyers Committee in its report, "Legal Defence in Northern Ireland". Those allegations, if substantiated, are extremely serious, as they go to the heart of our justice system which demands that every individual has a right to a proper defence. We agree with Lord Colville's findings that they represent
a very grave and serious set of allegations that warrants a full and thorough investigation".
The Secretary of State should set up an independent investigation and not just leave it to the RUC against whom the accusations are being made.
In any society safeguards are needed to prevent the abuse of power. However, even with safeguards, it is still necessary to have effective mechanisms through which complaints can be made if an incident occurs. The police complaints system is patently failing to provide proper redress for genuine grievances. Of the 395 cases of complaint completed in 1992, in only one case the police complaints commission recommended that charges be preferred against two officers who were subsequently found not guilty.
It is hard to conceive of any organisation with absolutely no abuses of authority and in which absolutely everybody is beyond reproach. I of course exclude the present Government from that comment.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: I shall continue just a little further if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. We have a lot to cover and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to intervene later.

Rev. Martin Smyth: It is on that point.

Mr. McNamara: This will be the last time so that we can make progress.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. Is there something wrong with my hearing or with the logic of the argument that is being deployed? The police would be amazed if they were all innocent. but is there no possibility of any lawyer being tainted?

Mr. McNamara: I am not suggesting for a moment that anybody who is involved in any situation is incapable of being tainted. But one cannot start with the basic presumption that people will be tainted and, when allegedly interviewing a witness, one cannot accuse the witness's solicitors of being tainted and suggest to witnesses that their solicitors are of no value because they are tainted. That is the nature of the allegations and that is why they must be examined independently.
We were talking about what Lord Colville says about the complaints procedure against the police. He said:
The profession or discipline loses more efficiency and usefulness than its individual members gain by perceived, or real, immunity.
That apparent immunity from the law affects confidence in the United Kingdom's justice system, not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the world. That is why we support Lord Colville's call for a review of police disciplinary procedures in Northern Ireland and welcome the fact that the Secretary of State said that he would be taking soundings on the matter.
We welcome the Government's appointment of an independent assessor of military complaints procedures, but again it is to examine only the procedures for non-criminal complaints and not substantive complaints.
Recent High Court decisions have served to highlight the need for greater discipline in the armed forces serving in support of the RUC in Northern Ireland. While we recognise the strains of a tour of duty in the region, there can be no excuse for the many reports of harassment inflicted on members of the community by the security forces. The Army must be called to account for the 51

persons arrested by the Army under section 18 of the Act in 1992, none of whom were subsequently charged with terrorist-related offences.
The recent decision by a magistrate to bind over five of the paratroopers charged with assault and disorderly behaviour in Coalisland because they were "not entirely innocent" is a severe blow to the credibility of the regiment as a force of law and order. It was made worse by the decision by the regiment to take no further action against the men. The fact that no negative inference appears to have been taken from their silence calls into question their equality before the law.
Questions still need to be answered about who ordered the town to be sealed off immediately prior to the disturbance. I mention that because many commentators have agreed that the actions of the paratroopers had a direct impact in the May local Government elections in Dungannon. This is a classic demonstration of how security policy cannot be isolated from the political situation in Northern Ireland.
The recent conviction of a paratrooper for the murder of a teenage girl who was in a car driven by a joy rider again serves to confirm fears about the whole culture of the regiment, particularly if, as was reported in The Independent, after the incident the paratroopers built a large model of the car and a bloodstained head with a notice reading
Vauxhall Astra. Built by robots. Driven by joy riders. Stopped by 'A' company.
The wall pictures flashed around on television screens of Europe, as I witnessed myself last week, did that regiment and this country no service.
While the introduction of the Army's early warning system and the new patrol identification cards are to be commended, they do not begin to tackle the underlying problem. Indeed, it is hard to envisage that a member of the public, having been harassed and intimidated by a member of the armed forces, would demand to see the soldier's patrol identification card. While these measures may have some deterrent effect, more needs to be done to stop the rising number of criminal complaints being lodged against the armed forces.
The actions leading to such complaints serve only to undermine the rule of law. For that reason the Labour party strongly endorses Lord Colville's recommendations that the Government introduce a code of practice on stop and search under the Emergency Provisions Act.
Lord Colville has again highlighted the inordinately long delays for prisoners awaiting trial. The Secretary of State has spoken about that and we support what he is trying to do, but we do not believe that dropping the legislative provision is necessarily the best solution.

Mr. Barry Porter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: Very well. I am missing out pages of my speech to let other hon. Members in, but I will give way if the hon. Gentleman wants me to.

Mr. Porter: In his allegations or suggestions about the conduct of the army and this particular regiment, the hon. Gentleman might care to remind the House how many soldiers whether of the Ulster Defence Regiment or of the mainland regiments, have been killed since 1969.

Mr. McNamara: Yes I am aware of that, and we know it from the figures that the Secretary of State has already


given. But there is one difference. I judge members of Her Majesty's forces or of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not by the standards of terrorists but by the standards that we expect from those who operate in the name of a civilised and just society.
The Chief Constable asked for additional powers. I can understand his wanting them. He faces difficult tasks. But the fact that he asks for them shows the danger of separating security policy from political reality and treating the problem primarily as one of policing, a containment exercise, as if putting people behind bars means that the problem will go away. It is not that. We still need to ask if we can continue to maintain the same policing methods in an increasingly divided society when they have blatantly failed to win the support of the whole community.
Why, in a divided society where the population is split approximately 57 per cent. loyalist and 43 per cent. nationalist, are 92 per cent. of the regular constabulary and 94 per cent. of the full-time reserve drawn from one section of the community while those recruited for local service in the Royal Irish Regiment are nearly 100 per cent. from the unionist community? It creates problems in securing acceptance throughout the community of the role of the security forces and only heightens the perception that the security forces are failing to uphold impartially the rule of law.
The police cannot deliver summonses in certain parts of Northern Ireland unless accompanied by heavy military patrols. There are large swathes of the countryside, particularly near the border, where there is no effective policing at all as we understand it on this island. That is not to cast any aspersions on the integrity of any individual member of the security forces—it is a question of fact and a matter that must be tackled—yet there is no evidence of fresh thinking by Government on this matter. Discussions on confidence-building measures at the Anglo-Irish Conference are given the briefest of mentions, and no details go to those very people whose confidence needs to be won and increased.
Political and security issues are inextricably linked, and. this must be recognised by the Secretary of State. Unless we tackle vigorously both issues, the Secretary of State's pious wish in his Liverpool speech for some form of political settlement to impact on
support for, and confidence in, the police and other security forces and in the administration of justice
will be so much whistling in the wind.
After 20 years of emergency powers and emergency policing, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and others have discussed the need for a more imaginative approach to policing in Northern Ireland and one that is more widely acceptable. We need to examine what can be done to achieve a more popular acceptance of the police.
Questions must be asked. Would it be possible to have community policing, to separate anti-terrorist policing from other forms? Perhaps it would be possible to share responsibility for anti-terrorist policing more fully with the Republic, to create a new form of constable, an Irish constable, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). Perhaps we could have a force from both jurisdictions, with power to operate in both areas.
It is immediately argued, however, that one group would not accept the idea or that another group would feel

that it infringed national sovereignty. But we must ask those who are not prepared to re-examine the role of the police and their acceptability to the whole community whether they want the present situation to continue indefinitely. It is only when answers to such questions are explored that the people of Northern Ireland will accept that they are receiving the protection of the law that they deserve and rightly demand.
The Government seem to assume that just because the emergency provisions legislation is on the statute book, terrorism will miraculously be defeated or at least contained and made more difficult, yet there is no evidence to support such unqualified confidence. The original emergency legislation was passed 20 years ago, yet according to a recent European Community report the murder rate in Northern Ireland is about five times the European average. Only the Calabria region in southern Italy, stronghold of the Mafia, ranks higher.
We recognise the urgent need for an effective anti-terrorist policy and we are now having conducted a major independent re-evaluation of existing measures to counter terrorism. The failure to develop a comprehensive civil libertarian policy to deal with political violence has led to contamination of freedom throughout Northern Ireland. It has also left the citizens of this island vulnerable to an ever present terrorist threat.
The Labour party, at least, recognises that the situation cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. Because of this, because internment remains on the statute book, because the Government refuse to accept the basic safeguards of video and audio recording of interrogations and have constantly rejected the majority of Lord Colville's modest proposals for reform, we shall yet again, sadly but necessarily because it is our duty, vote against the order tonight.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. In the two hours and five minutes remaining for the debate, no fewer than 11 right hon. and hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye.
If those who speak will bear that in mind, we may manage to fit in all those who wish to speak.

Sir Edward Heath: Next year, we shall have had 25 years of terrorism in the United Kingdom. It is now 20 years since I addressed the House on this subject and I want to do so again tonight in the light of the figure that I have just given.
Lord Colville's report is important and I would not for a moment question many of his suggestions. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will give his urgent attention to them. I hope that when he reaches decisions, they will be speedily implemented. The more one compares the operations of Government in this country with those elsewhere, the more one recognises how slow and lacking in determination they are. This, therefore, is a case where we cannot hinder developments that are agreed upon and are urgently required.
What I want to do tonight, however, is to come down to the basics of this problem. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State set out the Government's objectives. They are the same objectives as Governments of all parties have had over the past 24 years, and they are


quite right. But the plain fact is that, despite the lengthy passage of time, the objectives have not been achieved; nor is there any sign whatever of their being achieved.
Let me make it plain at the beginning that I have the utmost admiration for the people of Northern Ireland. It is beyond my understanding how they can have put up with these conditions for this length of time. I have the greatest possible sympathy with them in the losses that they have sustained and the terrible life that they must live. That same sympathy goes to those now on the mainland, in Warrington, in the City, and all those elsewhere who are affected. That is the first thing that I want to make plain.
Secondly, I am in no way criticising the work of Her Majesty's forces. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, wherever forces are deployed one finds occasional breaches of discipline. They are to be regretted, but I sometimes feel that there is so much emphasis on them that insufficient emphasis is laid on the good work that is being done by the forces, again in immensely difficult conditions. The same thing applies to the police. I have no criticism of them.
I must ask myself this question: at a time when other countries in Europe—to limit ourselves to that particular geographical area—have been able to deal with the problem, why have we failed? We have seen the most vicious forms of terrorism in Italy, with the Red Guards, in Germany, with the Red Army, in France and in Belgium, and they have got on top of it. In Spain, there have been periodic outbreaks, but they have been limited now to the Basque area. Why is it that those countries have been able to deal with this problem, but we have failed? We are entitled to ask that question.
The answer is that one can deal with terrorism only by being cleverer than the terrorists. That is absolutely basic. One has to be cleverer in intelligence, cleverer in action and cleverer politically. Again, to be perfectly blunt, we have failed in all three. That is why I want to get down to the basics; I do not believe that we can continue in this way. It is already being brought home to us here that the action in the City is damaging to our economic interests. Further action would be even more damaging.
This ought to be a major debate, but I have carefully calculated the number of those present and there are fewer than 5 per cent. of our Members here showing an interest in this matter which affects the whole of the United Kingdom. I ask myself—I do not wish to ask the House, because it might be embarrassing—whether, if the public relations representative of the IRA were in the Gallery, as for all I know he may be, he would say to his pals tonight, "My God, we are now in for a terrible time; with what those people are going to do to us, we shall be out of it." The answer is, not for a moment. He would go home and have a quiet drink and decide where to put the next bomb. This, I repeat, is why we have to get down to it.
Years ago, the other countries established official anti-terrorist bodies at the highest level, and that is why they have been successful. Those bodies took different forms, but we must have the same sort of thing if we are to be successful in dealing with this problem.

Mr. David Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the low attendance in the Chamber —I had to go to a meeting—but does he not agree that, despite the low attendance at such debates, since terrorism

by the Provisional IRA began 23 or 24 years ago, and as it is now being carried out by their counterparts on the other side, the House has been unanimous in condemning terrorism and no political advantage has been gained by that terrorists? The House has not been divided during the near quarter of a century and our condemnation of terrorism and refusal to give way are as firm as at the beginning. Should not the right hon. Gentleman, a former Prime Minister, recognise that terrorism has not divided British political opinion, either in the House or in the country, and that it will not do so?

Sir Edward Heath: I have not suggested otherwise. I am saying that, after nearly 25 years, there must be a dramatic change. I hope that the whole House has recognised that by now.
As I have said, other countries established central organisation, and here is my main point: I believe that the Prime Minister must now lift the level above what it is today if we are to achieve results. This matter must be put in the hands of one very Senior Cabinet Minister whose sole purpose will be to deal with terrorism in the United Kingdom. That is what is required.
I make no reflection on my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State or his predecessors. The Secretary of State is not responsible for what happens in the rest of the United Kingdom in dealing with terrorism. He therefore cannot be asked to carry out that task. It requires a very senior member of the Cabinet, because he must be able to carry with him other colleagues who feel that they have an interest or he must be able to lay down the law and say that something will be done because the Prime Minister wants it. That would be a major step forward, and the sooner it is taken, the better. We have seen various changes since the end of the cold war, particularly in regard to M15, but no one is trying to co-ordinate.
My other point—which I will make very briefly, because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, asked us to be as brief as possible—is that dealing with intelligence during the cold war, internationally or internally, was quite different from dealing with problems of this kind in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The sources of intelligence are quite different. Trying to find people who have been planted by Moscow in some social gathering or Government Department is quite different from the present situation. These people move in entirely different areas. When M15 wanted to get a good spy, it did not go to the local pub, but that is where these people can be found. We must have people who understand that, who know how to go about it and who get the information.
Of course, that will be dangerous, and some of those people will come to a sad end, but if we are to overcome this terrorism, that is part of the price that we have to pay. The sooner that intelligence is integrated, the better. It passes belief by most people who look at this, certainly from outside, how any group could have got together all the explosives that were planted in the City, let alone planted them there and arranged for the whole lot to go off —incidentally, doing £300 million of damage. Yet that is going on. and we do not know when and where the next explosion will he. That is intolerable after 25 years of trying to deal with this problem.
There are many things that could be done and ought to be done speedily once we get a supremo in charge. There should be videos—not from the point of view that has been
discussed, but for the protection of all sorts of organisations. That would cost money, so the organisations should be given tax rebates. That would be a useful job for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and would encourage people to cover all possible sources of information. Many other things could be done.
Intelligence will cost money, because one cannot get the information out of people unless one is prepared to make arrangements with them and for them. That all costs money, but the information is available. I will give one small personal example.
On one occasion, an article appeared in a Dublin paper which had been planted by the IRA and which libelled me. An attempt was made to find copies of the paper in London and those concerned said that they knew the people who sold the papers and would be able to get copies. When they went to that source, there was not one copy to be seen; the usual suppliers said that they had refused to take the paper that time. They knew what was going on. They did not know that I never bring libel actions, or they might have acted differently. So the information is available, but one has to know how to get it.
Turning to the political side, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has emphasised quite rightly, as has the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), that the politics and the military force go together. It is right that we should concentrate on politics, but we must also recognise that, until we begin to make serious progress against the terrorism, the politics will be more difficult. The more progress we make against the terrorism, the easier the political aspect will become.
The Secretary of State has been persistent, as were his predecessors. In 1985, eight years ago, there was the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Nothing has happened since then. There are certain political factors that we must face up to. The first is that we must have the best possible and closest relationship with the Republic of Ireland. I know that that will give offence, but it will have to be accepted. We shall not settle this problem until we have the closest possible relationship with Eire. We are in the same Community; we are both members. We have the same level playing fields in many different spheres. Why, then, can we not be together on this?
My impression, from the contacts that I have, is that the possibilities are becoming greater. There are changes coming about in the Eire constitution that we would not have dreamt of 20 years ago. We must use the situation to our advantage and have the closest possible relations with the Republic of Ireland.
Secondly, I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that, as his predecessors discovered—and as I knew in 1973—there is no purpose in carrying on talks if the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is a participant, as there will never be agreement. The Government must face up to that. There is no point in continuing to be nice. That will not produce any answers. The hon. Gentleman does not want agreement; he has always done everything possible to prevent agreement and he and his supporters will continue to try to prevent it.
Some hon. Members present today will remember Sunningdale—the only successful negotiation that we have had. It established the tripartite arrangement, which worked perfectly well—better than any of us ever thought it would—until the petrol strike in May 1974, when Mr.

Wilson said that he would break the strike and failed to do so, with the result that the coalition broke up. Sunningdale was the best thing that we have done for Ireland.
I only obtained that agreement because I excluded the hon. Member for Antrim, North. I would not have him at the conference because I knew that his only purpose would be to prevent agreement. He protested strongly. He actually came to Sunningdale to see me. I told him the same thing again. I said, "You're out. We're here to reach agreement." That should be the Government's position. There is no point in continuing as at present. Every set of talks at which we fail to reach agreement makes the situation worse; that is always the case. Let the Secretary of State say, "All right. Out. Now we will have people here who want agreement." Only then will we get agreement.
It is necessary—very necessary indeed—that we reach a political agreement with Eire. What substance is there in hon. Members' complaint about the Anglo-Irish Agreement? It is just a way of trying to establish an entity. It is just not worth it. It is immensely damaging to the people of Northern Ireland and, because terrorism takes place, it is also damaging to those of us in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the plain fact.
At the end of the debate on the order, regulations and so on will be passed. Let us realise that we must get down to the basic factors, and speedily. We need high-level central direction for the whole of the United Kingdom. Our primary emphasis must be on intelligence, and new intelligence. Following from that, our secondary emphasis must be on the action that can be taken by the police and the military forces.
I have said already that we need to be cleverer than the terrorists. There is no place for saying, "He is the next one due for promotions, so put him there," or, "He has been waiting for a long time, so put him there." We all know that from our experience in the services and elsewhere. If one does not put the cleverest people where they are most needed, it just does not work. That was discovered early in the second world war. Those who had responsibility found that the people who had been in post in peace time simply were not up to the job. They sent out for the cleverest people in the universities, in business and wherever they could be found, and those people produced the answers. We had better learn that lesson today, too. We must use the best people we have.
The Cabinet spends a great deal of time arguing about deploying forces here, there and everywhere in the world, yet we are not dealing with and have not solved our own problem. What does the rest of the world think when we say, "This is what you ought to do"? People politely ask, "What about Northern Ireland? What about the fact that the City of London was blown up?"? Of course they do not take any notice of us when they see the problem that we have on our own doorstep.
I hope that I have been helpful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I have lifted responsibility for the matter to a higher level. I hope that the Prime Minister will appreciate the additional task that I am giving him. In giving him that additional task, I have confidence in him. I believe that I have outlined what must be the solution to a problem that has existed for nearly 25 years. The situation has gone on for far too long and cannot be allowed to drag on any longer.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon.
Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) to mislead the House by telling it that I was at Sunningdale? I was never at Sunningdale. I brand that lie as I brand the other lies that the right hon. Gentleman has told the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the hon. Gentleman to make his own speech. He has not raised a point of order for me.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) accused the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup of telling lies. Surely, such remarks are unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not understand the hon. Member for Antrim, North to say that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was deliberately telling lies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Order. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say that the right hon. Gentleman was deliberately telling lies. That is a fact and it is no laughing matter.

Sir Edward Heath: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Antrim, North said that he never went near Sunningdale. I saw him myself in Sunningdale and talked to him there. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It might be advisable if the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman were to sort the matter out for themselves.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I had intended to start my remarks by saying that it was always a stimulating experience to follow the Father of the House. In the light of the brisk exchanges that have already taken place, to which we shall no doubt return, my words have come truer than I expected.
The well-thought-out proposals on security made by the Father of the House are worthy of serious consideration and I share the right hon. Gentleman's hope that Her Majesty's Government will take them to heart. He and I can remember the days of Templer, when people said that Malaysia could never be pacified and that it would be a running sore for generations. Because of effective and strong political and military leadership—

Rev. Martin Smyth: He was an Ulsterman.

Mr. Molyneaux: And he was an Ulsterman into the bargain
—the campaign was terminated much earlier than we had a right to expect.
I entirely agree with the Father of the House that, where terrorism had been a destructive force in other European nations, those nations had been able to tackle the problem in a co-ordinated way within their own boundaries. If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, there is a slight contradiction between that assertion and the point that he made towards the end of his speech, when he advocated the internationalisation of the security problem in Northern Ireland by inviting in the Irish Government. I want to return to the political aspect later.
On the equivalent occasion on 10 June last year, the motion before us was almost identical to that on the Order Paper today. At the end of that debate, the official Opposition took the unwise—some might say irrespon-sible—decision to divide the House. The intention was, as it always is in a Division, to defeat the Government. There was a possibility that they might just have succeeded on that occasion. Tonight, however, the position is very different.
Had the Opposition succeeded in defeating the Government on that earlier occasion, the law of the land would have been changed. That would not be the case today, because a formula that was originally designed for the duration of the talks last year has now been given a certain rigidity and permanence. That formula is expressed in the words, "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed." It follows that nothing can be agreed until everyone agrees. In the light of the remarks made by the Father of the House, I think that he sees the difficulty of achieving success given that formula.
That straitjacket will have an effect on our parliamentary processes as profound as—if I dare mention it—the Maastricht treaty, which I understand is under discussion in another place today. It is rather a pity that there should be a clash of attractions within the same building. It says much for the devotion of the Father of the House that he has chosen to participate in this debate and has not yielded to the blandishments of the siren voices in the other place.
When the Secretary of State opened the debate last June, he referred to the new provisions contained in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. He mentioned changes that were intended to make the fight against terrorism more effective. Unfortunately, we must admit that there is no tangible evidence of improvement. In the past year, there has been an escalation in violence and counter-violence. Although "The Talks" last year and the rumours and distortions surrounding them have destabilised the entire community, the enhanced powers have had no appreciable effect. One must conclude that the changes in the law, which have been under consideration for many months, must be delayed no longer. In that respect, I agree with the Father of the House.
The price of delay in human terms and human lives is far too great to justify delay. When I visited Portadown last week, I was told that when the Minister of State visited the town, he asked some bystanders what they would do. I have great admiration for the intellect of the good citizens of Portadown in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). However, they could be forgiven for feeling that perhaps the Minister of State might have had some sound ideas of his own given that he has at his disposal the products of a vast intelligence-gathering machine, not to mention the much-vaunted security co-operation with the Irish authorities which is said to have improved from one Northern Ireland Question Time to the next over the past nine years. The packaging was entitled, "Peace, stability and reconciliation."
If the Minister of State did not know what to do then, he knows what to do now. The Chief Constable of the RUC, in presenting his report two weeks ago, published his list. He said that he wanted to see changes in the law under the following headings:
1. the removal of the right to silence when being questioned about crime;



2. a refusal to answer questions in carefully defined circumstances should be an offence;
3. accomplice evidence should be more readily admissable;
4. previous terrorist convictions should be admitted to show system or courses of conduct;
5. the burden of proof, in defined circumstances, should shift to the accused;
6. evidence of an intelligence nature should be admissible, again in carefully defined and controlled circumstances;
7. the discovery process requires revision."

The Chief Constable is no firebrand. He is the responsible head of the best and second-largest constabulary in the United Kingdom. He will have reached those conclusions after long and careful deliberations. He is the person best fitted to know exactly what is needed to ensure that the law enforcement agencies and the courts can co-operate within a coherent framework. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State must pay heed to the senior officers of the police and the Army in respect of their advice and perhaps pay less attention to the desk-bound advisers whose flawed schemes have destabilised the entire Ulster community.
The Secretary of State had the benefit of the first-hand views of the chairman of the Police Federation earlier today. He will have heard him say:
In our case, however, our difficulties are not largely of our own making. Much of the cause of the discontent felt by the police service in Northern Ireland can be very firmly laid at the door of Stormont Castle and Queen Anne's Gate.
On the issue of security, the chairman said:
We have a Government that is trapped in clichés and whose only other response is to call for cool heads and hard looks at the situation.
The chairman, Mr. Beattie, went on to support the Chief Constable's plea for sensible amendment of the law and he concluded:
Together, the police service, the judicial system, the community, and a Government more obviously armed with the political will to win, we can and will succeed in ending this misery.
His words were not entirely out of line with what the Father of the House said.
We are striving to do our part. Today, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann has tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords], which is currently in Standing Committee, in the following simple terms:
a refusal to answer questions in carefully defined circumstances should be an offence.
I trust that the Secretary of State will draw the Home Secretary's attention to that amendment and persuade him to accept it.
The Secretary of State referred to the second recommendation of the Colville report which urges investigation into allegations of intimidation of defence solicitors. I agree that there should be such an investigation. There is a belief that accused persons often demand access to names and addresses of witnesses. If a solicitor honourably refuses to hand over a deposition, the threat and intimidation are switched to the solicitor's clerk and to the solicitor's office staff. When such intimidation is clearly effective, it is small wonder that the intimidated should be reluctant to come forward. It might also be prudent to check on ugly reports that certain terrorist organisations claim a share in legal aid costs.
The chairman of the Police Federation used the phrase
a Government more obviously armed with the political will to win".

There is a perception that the Government do not have that will to win. None of us can ignore that perception. At its root cause there is an even greater question mark over the Government's will to govern. I hope that I can carry the Father of the House with me because there is common ground on the philosophy of making a start in governing Northern Ireland more efficiently by beginning at the bottom layer.
The Government's will to govern is questioned in the wider context of the United Kingdom as a whole. However, I do not intend to stray into that area today. It may be unfair, but it is a factor in the minds of terrorists and their victims. However, I shall restrict to Northern Ireland my judgment on the Government's will to govern.
If the Government really possess that will, why do they permit advisors to hook them on the phrase,
nothing can be agreed until everything is agreed"?
Why does the Northern Ireland Office block the prospect of modest progressive improvements to the governance of Northern Ireland? Why, over more than 20 years, has the Northern Ireland Office destroyed, through flawed initiatives at intervals of roughly every 18 months, stability that was patiently created?
Why cannot the Northern Ireland Office be content with the proof that Ulster's political leaders can and do work together, sit together and co-operate on a wide range of economic, health, education and environmental matters to an extent that no hon. Member would contemplate in respect of any of the other political leaders from Great Britain?
Given that the greater number—I use that phrase rather than "the majority"—of Northern Ireland citizens fully support that kind of activity, will the Secretary of State try such endeavours for the next six months? Is he in any doubt about the dedication of my party to that course, which would restore stability and which could lead to the defeat of terrorism from whatever quarter?

Mr. Peter Robinson: If there has been a common theme in the debate so far, it has been a frustration about the length of time that "the troubles" —as they are euphemistically called in Northern Ireland —have continued. For almost a quarter of a century, the United Kingdom's citizens in Northern Ireland have suffered an horrendous campaign of violence.
As we come to the ritual of the continuation order of what are described as emergency provisions, the word "emergency" speaks to me of something that is temporary or periodic. However, it is now a way of life in Northern Ireland. It would be worth while for the House to consider whether we are winning the battle against terrorism, whether progress has been made and what changes there have been over the past 23 or 24 years.
Statistically, it can easily be shown that things are worse now than they have been for many years. During an intervention, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) gave some statistics that showed that there had been a sharp increase in violence since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The death statistics for Northern Ireland show that 3,053 people have been murdered as a result of terrorist campaigns. Of those 3,053, some 640 have been members of the Army, the UDR or the Royal Irish Regiment, and some 290 have been members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and its reserves.
The overwhelming majority of those who have been killed were civilians. Most of them were innocent in terms of not being involved in any way in any political or paramilitary organisation. Outside the 3,053 people who have been killed in Northern Ireland, 100 have been killed in the Republic of Ireland, 118 have been killed in Great Britain, and 18 have been killed in other parts of Europe directly as a result of the terrorist campaigns from Northern Ireland.
If those cold statistics are hard to take in, the fact is that, if the Northern Ireland community of some 1·5 million people is considered in ratio to the population of Great Britain, one would be envisaging the murder of some 125,000 people on the mainland. One would be talking about more than 1·25 million people on the mainland having been maimed and mutilated as a result of violence. If that had happened on the mainland, the response of the House to terrorism would have been of much greater urgency than it has been.
As I listened to the speech of the Father of the House, I noticed that there were heads nodding on both sides of the Chamber during his early comments. However, as he suggested how we might deal with the problem of terrorism, the heads ceased to nod. A major difficulty is that we all agree that terrorism is wrong and should be brought to an end but, when it comes to how it might be brought to an end, there is a great disagreement in the House, and, indeed, in the community as a whole.
In terms of the level of violence, the main change in terrorism over the past quarter of a century has been the fact that, instead of dealing with one major sophisticated and well-trained terrorist organisation, we are now dealing with terrorist organisations on both sides of the community, carrying out almost an equal level of attrition against the Northern Ireland people. The violence is now two-sided. It is much more deeply rooted than ever before. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that there is much greater support for terrorism than there was during the early part of the troubles in Northern Ireland.
What is certain is that terrorism is much better organised now. It is more sophisticated. It is part of an international terrorist regime. There is the ability for much greater training and better equipment. Indeed, it is sad to discover that the terrorist is often much better equipped than the member of the security forces whom he will have to face as he attempts to carry out his assassinations.
Therefore, in terms of the arsenal of terrorism, the terrorists are in a better position than ever before. They have no reluctance to carry out their campaign of violence. They have in no way lowered their resolve to continue their acts and their attrition in Northern Ireland. There appears to be no shortage in the funding or manpower of terrorist organisations.
I remember a group of Conservative Back Benchers being in Northern Ireland. After a briefing from the Northern Ireland Office and security chiefs, they were able to tell us that they had been told that there were about only 300 active terrorists in Northern Ireland—this is several years ago. Today, the Secretary of State told us that more than 450 of those 300 were put in gaol last year, and another 150 have been put in jail so far this year. The statisticians better get back to work and sharpen their

pencils because their calculations are clearly inaccurate. There seems to be an ever ready supply of people who will go out and carry a gun or place a bomb.
After a quarter of a century of terrorism, the community is right to ask: when will it end? Are we winning the war against the terrorists? If there had been the least indicator that some step had been taken along the road towards defeating terrorism, the community could place its confidence in the Government. However, the community does not see that we are winning the war against terrorism—far from it. The community has no confidence in the Government's security policy.
Therefore, it says to the Government, "If you simply continue to adopt the policies that have failed for a quarter of a century, what hope is there for us in Northern Ireland?" The Government must address that question and decide what steps can be taken to grasp the nettle of terrorism, rather than simply contain terrorist violence at the present level.
In 1985, we were told by the then Prime Minister that there was a political way of defeating terrorism, and that the agreement that she had signed with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic would bring peace, stability and reconciliation. The statistics given earlier show that, far from giving peace, stability and reconciliation, the violence has increased substantially. The people in Portadown are entitled to ask: where is that peace? The people of Magherafelt and those who live around the Drumkeen hotel, which has been bombed twice in the past few months, are entitled to ask the same question, as are those in other parts of my constituency who have buried their loved ones recently.
The hand of violence has been active on both sides of our community. In the past few days, a 65-year-old Roman Catholic man was killed in Dundonald. What possible advantage is there in killing an old-age pensioner in his home? His only interests seem to have been his grandchild and playing a round of golf. Yet that is the level of terrorism that takes place. That man had lived in and been accepted by the community for more than 20 years. He had even done some painting and decorating for members of the security forces.
I will not fall into the trap of saying that it is mindless violence, because there is always a purpose in the violence of either the IRA or any other terrorist organisation. Of course, the purpose is to create fear in the community and to stake out one's territory, wherever that territory may be. The House has a responsibility to show in the clearest terms that there is no moral justification for violence. Violence cannot be morally justified, because there are no special circumstances that need to be addressed, and it is not legitimate. Violence cannot be justified by terrorist action in any section of our community. The nature of terrorism has not changed over the years. It is intrinsically evil, and evil in its every aspect.
Moreover, terrorism is the antithesis of politics. The people who are involved in terrorism are not misguided politicians. They are terrorists. Therefore, they should not be treated as misguided politicians. I conclude from that that the Government should not deal with them by means of negotiations. They should not be brought to the negotiating table. I go further. They should not be given the credibility of being part of the political process by being brought into dialogue of any nature.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it extraordinary that, in what was in the main a most fascinating and positive speech, the Father of the House suggested that a political party in Northern Ireland should be excluded from talks about finding a solution to the desperate problems of that country?
If the hon. Gentleman believes what he has just said in condemnation of terrorism, and if he believes in democracy and the political process, does he believe that it is utterly wrong that my right hon. Friend should seek to exclude from discussions and consultations a party, and the leader of that party, which upholds the constitution and law and order and deplores terrorism?

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's encouragement to respond to that point. Of course the Father of the House is right. It is always easier to achieve agreement if some of those who are a party to the difficulties are excluded. For example, if we excluded the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and his party, it would be possible to reach agreement. Indeed, during the last talks process, the other three Northern Ireland constitutional parties reached agreement to which the hon. Member for Foyle did not give his assent. So if one excludes people, one will always find it easier to reach agreement. But that will not solve the real problems in the Province.

Mr. Hume: If the hon. Gentleman is so opposed to paramilitary activities in the way that he has stated here, why were he and his party involved in setting up the Ulster Resistance Movement, a body which has since imported arms, which everyone knows kill human beings in Northern Ireland? What connection had the hon. Gentleman's party and its origins with the Ulster Protestant Volunteer Force, which was the first organisation to use violence in the past 25 years? Some of that organisation's members later complained in court that it was a tragedy that they ever knew a certain hon. Gentleman in the House.

Mr. Robinson: I can well understand the sensitivities of the hon. Member for Foyle, who stood in the ranks of those who attacked the police in the city of Londonderry, who told us that it would be a united Ireland or nothing, and who now sits down with the leader of the IRA-Sinn Fein and puts out joint proclamations with the leader of the IRA-Sinn Fein through the press centre that claims the death of my fellow citizens. I can understand his sensitivities on all those things, but I propose to conclude—

Mr. Hume: Answer the question. What did the hon. Gentleman have to do—

Mr. Robinson: I heard the hon. Gentleman's question when he was standing, so I do not need to hear it again when he is in a sedentary position. The Ulster Democratic Unionist party has consistently supported the security forces. It has never been a party to violence in any form. The hon. Gentleman, who has a history in Northern Ireland of street politics, is the last person whom I shall allow to lecture me on the subject. The Ulster Democratic Unionist party has no relationship with any organisation that is involved in terrorist activity.
Whenever the Government are asked whether they are prepared to take tough and resolute action on the security

front, they say that it would be counter-productive to do so. In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the Prime Minister said that such a course would damage the integrity and credibility of constitutional politics and the institutions of the state—damage which he believed would be irreparable. Therefore, he implied that, if one took tough and resolute action on the security front, there would be an advantage to the terrorists.
Everyone knows that terrorism thrives particularly in a liberal democracy, and that terrorism enjoys the fact that in a liberal democracy people must have recourse to emergency legislation. However, the one thing that the terrorist dislikes most is that no appeasement is given to him as a result of his terrorist activity. An intervention was made in the speech of the Father of the House in which it was suggested that the Government had not made any concession to violence. That was inaccurate. The Government have consistently made many concessions.
One concession that stands out is the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It was a major concession to violence. When the then Prime Minister signed the agreement, she said, "I simply could not allow the violence to continue." She clearly indicated to the public and to the world that her signature on the Anglo-Irish agreement was brought about by the violence of the Provisional IRA.
If the terrorist organisations know that they have the ability to gain concessions from the Government through their violence, the certainty is that violence will continue. Indeed, after the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, the publicity officer of the IRA, one Danny Morrison, said that the Anglo-Irish Agreement had been won by the sacrifices of the volunteers. He implied that, the more violence there was, the more concessions there would be. That being the fact, the Government have encouraged violence by the political actions that they have taken.
The Government's acceptance that the Government of the Irish Republic can be involved in a joint authority under the Anglo-Irish Agreement is an encouragement to those who carry out violence on the nationalist side to continue their violence. It is essential that the Government make no concessions to either those who are directly involved in violence or those who ride on the back of those who are involved in violence. It is essential also that the Government are prepared to use the full rigour of the law against the terrorist organisations.
The Minister responsible for security has equated requests that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North made for more resolute action on the security front with a request that the security forces should act outside the law. That was not the case. The security forces must act within the law. But if the law is not adequate to allow the security forces to deal with the terrorism, it is necessary to frame new legislation and give them additional powers.
It is essential that there should be tougher sentences. There should be minimum or mandatory sentences, so that the courts can ensure that those who are involved are put away for a time that fits the crime that they have committed.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that my hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to the case in our courts yesterday. Although they were not charged with murder, five men killed a constituent and friend of mine by


ambushing his car. What did they get? None of them got more than four years. When the Northern Ireland Office was questioned by the press, it confirmed:
Most of those sentenced will be free in just over two years".
Does my hon. Friend appreciate the outrage of Thomas McNabney and the whole family at the way in which the matter has been handled and especially at the sentences? Young Ivor was doing a Christian job in charity, and was so killed.

Mr. Robinson: I certainly can concur with my hon. Friend's remarks. Last night on television, I saw the sad sight of the father of the young man being interviewed. How can anyone ever justify a sentence of four years? The life of the killed man is worth only four years of the life of his killer. There can be no justification for such a light sentence. I trust that those with authority in the House will consider reviewing it. It is essential that a tough sentence should be given to those involved in such a killing.
In addition to the necessity for tougher action against terrorists, it is important that those with responsibility for the security forces at grass roots level make full use of the powers that already exist. About two weeks ago, on a Wednesday evening at about 11·15, the Royal Irish Regiment carried out a number of road stops in the markets areas of Belfast. In effect, the regiment closed off the whole of the markets area.
During the road stops, a gunman opened fire on a soldier and attempted to kill him. He shot the soldier through the face. The soldier was taken to intensive care in a local hospital. The RIR had sufficient personnel on the ground to carry out a house-to-house search of the area. There was a divisional mobile support unit in the nearby Musgrave street police station.
The person in charge of the regiment asked for permission to conduct a house-to-house search of the area to get the gunman who had attempted to kill one of his soldiers and the weapon. Both the gunman and the weapon will undoubtedly be used in further attempts to kill, if not in killings. Permission was refused by an assistant chief constable. If we are to win the war against terrorism, surely we must allow our security forces to deal with the issues when they are on the ground and have the capability to do so.
The Secretary of State said that the security forces are not handcuffed in any way. I have given one example of where they were handcuffed and were not allowed to do the job. The colleagues of the young man had to sit back and not take action that would have apprehended the man responsible for attempting to kill one of them.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman misrecalls what I said. I said that the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary had referred to frequent assertions in the wake of one terrorist outrage after another that the security forces are handcuffed and that the handcuffs should be removed. The Chief Constable went on to say that there was no restraint of any kind whatever imposed from any political quarter on what the RUC can do in the defence of law.

Mr. Robinson: Indeed, in my example it was not the political chiefs who were handcuffing the RIR, but the assistant chief constable. The community has a right to

know why the assistant chief constable refused permission to the RIR to carry out a house-to-house search to find the person who attempted to kill a soldier and remove the weapon used.
In conclusion, after a quarter of a century of terrorism in Northern Ireland, far from being defeated, it is stronger than it has ever been. It is stronger because of a Government policy that encourages those who are involved in terrorism by making concessions and appeasing them. It has grown stronger because tough, resolute security initiatives have not been taken against terrorists.
In 25 years' time, Members of this House will gather once more and say to themselves and each other, "Isn't it terrible how terrorism continues in Northern Ireland?" Terrorism will continue until this failed Government security policy is put to rest and a new initiative is taken to defeat terrorists through tough, resolute military action.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Reference has been made to 25 years on several occasions. The House will forgive me if I start further back than that at the very foundation of the state 72 years ago. From its very foundation the north of Ireland has never had anything other than emergency legislation. It was then called the Special Powers Act.
From the very day and hour that the state was formed it has been sustained by draconian emergency legislation, military might, soldiers, not one police service but on certain occasions two and on others three, and by the inpouring of billions of pounds—according to the Secretary of State, £3·5 billion last year.
There is a fundamental question to be asked outside of the legalities of the emergency provisions legislation, of the statistics and of the emotions that it engenders. Where a state or a statelet is formed with the weight of the British Government behind it in military and financial terms and in terms of the emergency provisions legislation, the Prevention of Terrorism Acts and the Special Powers Act and still the problem remains, is there not a fundamental question to ask?
Is it not even more fundamental to ask why, after 72 years, all those measures have never brought peace, stability or unity of purpose to the north of Ireland? There is something much more fundamental than the points that have been made about terrorist violence, statistics and the legalities of the Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) admirably pointed out.
The question must be repeated: will the north of Ireland for as long as it lasts in its present form require armies to sustain it, lookout posts to defend it, emergency provisions Acts, prevention of terrorism Acts and billions of pounds per year? That is the question that we should be asking ourselves. That question is at the heart of this debate.
The Father of the House made a valiant attempt to face up to it and the House of Commons should face up to it. Year after year we skirt around the subject. We do not deal with the core of the problem because the core hurts. It is much easier to indulge ourselves in self-righteousness, righteous anger or whatever emotion happens to be taking us.
After 72 years, has not the 1921 arrangement that set up the north of Ireland failed abysmally to deliver peace,


stability, economic well-being and a future for the people there? Is it not an artificial entity that can be sustained only by this type of militarism and emergency legislation? Is it not further the case that until fundamental changes are made in that arrangement violence, unrest and political instability will continue whether we like it or not? That is a core problem and it is not popular to say so in the House.
It is strange that I have yet to meet a Member who, when I talk to him privately over a cup of tea or something stronger, does not ask the same question that I am asking now: is it not the case that the north of Ireland constitutional arrangement of 1921 is not capable of being sustained except by military might, repressive legislation and what we have seen during the past 72 years? That is one of the issues that the House must start to consider.
The fundamental reasons for failure are not the Army, the police, the courts or the Ministers because we have had all kinds of generals, Chief Constables and Ministers and God knows how many regiments of soldiers. They cannot all be equally bad. It is not their fault. They are put in a situation where they have to sustain the unsustainable and make the unworkable work. Unless we face that problem and make the fundamental changes that are required, more Ministers will go over to Northern Ireland to suffer the same type of frustration and failure, more hon. Members like us will come and suffer the same frustration as that to which we give vent here and more people will have worse to deal with—their lives will be lost.
We must all face up, honestly, to a number of false premises. One is inherent in the order. One cannot make the legal process solve what are essentially political problems, but that is what has been attempted. A political problem is staring us in the face and has been doing so since 1921. An attempt has been made to use the law to solve it. The only way in which that can be done, however, is by diminishing, bending and retarding the law. It has been made to do something that it is simply not geared to do. As long as we keep tinkering with the law to try to make it do just that, we will do more damage to its integrity and the process of law.
The law does not exist to solve political problems. It. exists for different reasons. That is the first premise which must be challenged when we consider the emergency legislation.
The second false premise that must be considered is the erroneous view that, somehow or other, if one has a problem such as that which exists in Northern Ireland and if one throws more troops and police at it, builds more Army installations and lookout posts, pours more billions of pounds into it and makes more emergency laws, as the Chief Constable recommends that we should do, that will result in more successful policing, greater intelligence information, more arrests and less terrorism. We need only listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) to be convinced that the more one does that, the more one adds to terrorism.
An erroneous paradox exists in Northern Ireland—the greater the intensity of security, the more the community suffers; the more that community suffers, the less the police are able to gather real intelligence from it. That means that the terrorist is laughing all the way to his next atrocity because he knows the political reality.
The terrorist also knows that the security operation in Northern Ireland, perhaps through no fault of its own or misdirection, but because of the fundamental flaw in its purpose, has strangled its own capacity for detection. The

security arrangements are defeating their own purpose. One need only look at the figures relating to those charged with terrorist offences who come from the mainstream Catholic areas and the mainstream Protestant areas to realise that that is the case. Intelligence information is not coming through to the police because the security operation has strangled itself. The gap between the police and the community has grown to such an extent that that intelligence information is simply not there, despite what people will say.
When are we ever going to address that fundamental flaw in the security operation? When will we realise that there is a problem with policing in the north of Ireland— not with the police. That problem is a political, historical, ideological reactive one. It is for that reason that the IRA can operate in my constituency, almost impervious to the battery of security that operates around it. That is why the IRA was able to move down to Cullaville village, right under one of the look-out posts which houses all the most sophisticated observation equipment, and take it over for two hours with huge machine guns. The Army personnel stood up in their look-out post and watched.
I do not blame the Army for not coming down, but I blame the people who' put them up in that observation post. I blame those who have created a situation in which fools are being made not just of the soldiers, the Ministers and myself but of the entire community. That community now realises the strength of the position that we all, in our own way, have given to the terrorists. We must face up to that fact because we are faced continuously with such behaviour by terrorists.
Until we realise that there is a fundamental problem with policing, as it affects the nationalist community, we will not solve that problem. That will also make it much more difficult to solve the other extraneous problems.
The rake's progress continues. Every year we all say the same things. Every year we have a knee-jerk reaction to this order. If one is feeling in a good mood, one tries to soften that reaction slightly, but if one is a bad mood, one tries to tell the truth. Telling the truth in a political forum is not always the most advisable thing to do, but that is much more healthy than to have the type of ritual dance on the problems that we have once a year while ignoring their roots.
I began by referring to the Special Powers Act. Let us remind ourselves what John Vorster, Minister of Justice in South Africa, said when he introduced the Coercion Bill:
I would be willing to exchange all the legislation of that sort for one clause in the Northern Ireland Special Powers Act.
What has changed since then?
It is interesting to consider that Act. I know that the Minister will go away and read it. The power to arrest without a warrant and to be held for 48 hours for interrogation is included in the EPA and it was also added to the Special Powers Act. Internment without trial, powers of search and entry without warrant, the prohibition of the right of assembly and the outlawing of organisations was also permitted under those two Acts. Exclusion orders, would the House believe it, are permitted under the Special Powers Act and the PTA. A prohibition on the holding of inquests is not set down in statute, but operates in practice. Such is the relationship between the Northern Ireland EPA and the order that we are debating tonight.
One can see clearly that the legislation may have been softened at the edges and that changes have been made —I admit that the paragraph about which Vorster talked has been changed fundamentally—but it is the same animal with furry boots. It has existed since 1921.

Mr. Molyneaux: Would the hon. Gentleman be generous enough to look to the southern end of the island where he will find that the same kind of legislation was introduced to protect that state from its enemies within? Is it not a fact that very similar legislation currently operates in the Irish Republic, including something even equivalent to provisions for internment?

Mr. Mallon: I accept that point. We would not have the problem if the legislation in the south had succeeded. Emergency legislation in the south has failed as much as ours. The problem there is the same as ours. There is a fundamental political flaw within the island of Ireland, from which those in the south suffer as we do. No matter how often people are interned or how much emergency legislation is introduced, those in the south have the same problem as we have. Unfortunately, we share the same failure.
Are we progressing at all? The most depressing things that I have seen for a long time were the recommendations by the Chief Constable about additional powers, which we must consider closely. One recommendation was the removal of the right to silence when questioned about a crime. In The Independent on Wednesday 2 June, a well known QC in this city, Anthony Scrivener, said of the Asil Nadir case that the powers given to the Serious Fraud Office were the widest powers of
any British institution since the Star Chamber".
That is the view of an eminent QC in London. He should make the EPA and the PTA his bedroom reading for at least a few nights, because it is the very right to silence—the refusal to answer questions—which the Chief. Constable said should become an offence. Where is the difference? We are supposed to be part of Britain. We are supposed to share the benefits and advantages, but the Chief Constable of the north of Ireland makes that demand in the face of the legal opinion of Anthony Scrivener.
The Chief Constable also states that accomplice evidence should be more readily admissible. We saw what accomplice evidence did to the court system and the north of Ireland. We know how many people are running about in the north of Ireland and here as a result of accomplice evidence which simply could not be sustained. The Chief Constable wants to reintroduce that provision.
The Chief Constable also states that the burden of proof in defined circumstances should shift to the accused. The most basic legal principle that has existed in the western world is to be jettisioned because the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary believes that, unless a person convicts himself, it will be impossible successfully to bring a case against him. Is that not pushing the panic button and doing something dreadful to the legal process? Does it not further demean the law? Is it not an admission from the Chief Constable that, unless the accused is placed in a position where he will make a confession or condemn himself out of his own mouth, the

Chief Constable will be incapable of obtaining the evidence necessary to put the accused behind bars if he is guilty? That is what the Chief Constable is saying.
The Chief Constable is right—one figure shows that 86 per cent. of those charged and convicted under emergency legislation are convicted on their own evidence. If we pursue that line, the law in the north of Ireland will be in tatters. If we take the action recommended by the hon. Members for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), we shall further diminish the law to a point way beyond the Special Powers Act begun in 1921. Surely, that would not be progress and that is not the way to advance.
I know that the Secretary of State is a wise and learned lawyer and I believe that he has a respect for the law derived from his profession. I know that he would share my view that, not only is the law too precious to be left to lawyers, but it is much too precious to be left to policemen. It should be guarded by all hon. Members so that we do not allow even the consideration of such possibilities. When I read the Chief Constable's analysis it made me despair almost as much as I despair of the terrorism that he is trying to prevent.
Internment is still on the statute book, and I shall not describe its history, or its merits or demerits in detail. All I say is that we must get rid of internment if only to get rid of the knee jerk reactions that we see every time a particularly bad atrocity is committed. We should do so because at least we would take such venom out of the air.
The notion that internment can work successfully in modern society is based on the belief that there are those within the governmental, policing, army or intelligence systems who know who are committing the terrible acts. There are politicians in the House and people outside the House who believe that, but it is not true. It is time that we addressed the issue of internment. We should get it out of the way because sooner or later some of us, whether we are in Government or Opposition, will have to start putting Humpty Dumpty together again. We cannot do that on the basis of a further diminishing of the law.
I shall recount an incident involving the issue of search and arrest. A few weeks ago two young men in my constituency had the milking machine on in their milking parlour as they were ready to go milking. A section of the Army arrived in their yard and asked them for proof of identity. The young men were dressed for milking cows and were not carrying proof of identity in their own milking parlour so could not make it available to the Army. They were bundled into a Land Rover and, after receiving considerable abuse, they were taken to Markethill police station.
I was immediately informed of the incident. Those young men were arrested under the emergency provisions legislation and the Prevention of Terrorism Act. When I made inquiries, the young men were being released. When I talked to the police it was obvious that they did not believe one word of the soldiers. It was the second time that the family had been treated in such a way. On the first occasion, I was in correspondence with the Minister. I reported the incident to the police, whose views I received. I reported it to the brigadier in charge of the area and the Anglo-Irish Conference. Not one person within the system has been able to say that it was wrong that the event should have occurred and that the soldiers involved would be dealt with. There has been no redress.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is smirking—he is enjoying this. It is such abuse of the legislation that is throwing people into the arms of the provisional IRA. I have never raised a specific case on the Floor of the House before and I probably shall not do so again. However, when such a case is fed into the system, but that system is impotent and cannot protect the rights of people against the excesses carried out under such legislation, it makes me despair, not just of the system, but of the legislation.
One could speak for ever—I shall not—about elements of the legislation. I shall simply make the same point that I have made every year since I entered the House. Do we want to solve the problem or do we want military victory over the IRA, the UVF, the UDA and whatever else? It is worth thinking about that. Do we want peace and a solution, or do we want to respond to the type of Kiplingesque demands that are consistently made?

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I listened with care to the remarks of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). Although it was by no means the first time that I have heard him speak, never before had I heard him so strident and intransigent, and I found his remarks depressing. I saw them, first and foremost, as a bleak, ill omen for any hope at some time in the future of restarting the constitutional talks.
If those are the hon. Gentleman's attitudes—of course, he means what he says—one can only conclude that he sees the nationalist community as continuing to be a source, and a provider of succour, for those men of violence, unless the nationalist community gets its own way. What hope is there for normalisation, with that sort of attitude running through? His is a thesis that is devoid of hope.
A degree of repetition inevitably characterises these annual debates on the renewal of the provisions of the emergency provisions Act and the prevention of terrorism Act. I am aware that what I say may reflect what I have said in the past. If I am open to that charge, I am sure that the same charge can be levelled against other hon. Members.
Given the tragic fact of the continuation of violence in Northern Ireland by the IRA and various republican groupings on the one hand and, on the other, by so-called loyalist groupings, there is no alternative other than to give the measures our approval, and we should be failing in our duty if we did not do so.
For that reason, I deeply regret the attitude of Opposition Members. I understand their reservations about a number of features in the provisions, but they are making the wrong conclusion in jumping from those reservations to a position of not supporting them. As the saying goes, that gives the wrong signals to this country and especially to the IRA.
I give my full and unequivocal support to the continuance order. I note with interest the unequivocal support given also at various stages by Lord Colville. I cannot recall him writing so succinctly as he writes on page 4:
It is impossible to disagree with those who advise that the Act is still needed.
He later adds:
Any diminution of the determination or capability on the part of the Government and the Security Forces to prevent these crimes or catch the criminals could merely act as an invitation to the opposing faction".

I particularly welcome his further comment:
the impact of the EPA is not so dramatic as to affect the majority of the law-abiding public to any great extent.
That suggests that the right balance is being maintained. It adds to my confidence in the continuance order and the other measures. Such measures are demanded by the circumstances and we should be failing in our duty if we did not support them. Any infringement of civil liberties must be accepted with regret as necessary and right.
A few points in the report particularly struck me. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred in his opening remarks to the first of the major recommendations, on page 5:
The Government should give consideration to introducing custody time limits for all persons on remand for indictable offences".
I welcomed my right hon. and learned Friend's comments on that point and I believe that we are moving in the right direction.
Some of the evidence that has come my way about the situation in Northern Ireland has led me particularly to welcome the sixth recommendation in the report, that
the Government should consider introducing a code of practice on 'stop and search' under the EPA.
I have felt for some time that that matter demanded attention.
I was grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for enabling me to intervene in his speech to mention the matter of greatest concern to me—measures relating to the confiscation of terrorist funds. I sincerely hope that the amendments will close any existing loophole and that soon there will he something to show for those measures.
It is obvious that terrorism flourishes, among other things, on its financial support, its financial means and its ability to finance its operations. It is regrettable that there has been little action in that respect in the past, but I hope that the reassurances and optimism that characterised my right hon. and learned Friend's speech will soon become reality.
I give a warm welcome to the measures, which I believe will again play an important part in combating terrorism.

Mr. David Alton: I am happy to speak following the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). Like him, I have come to the conclusion that, unpalatable though it is that there should be a continuing need for measures of this kind, it would send the wrong signals if the House were not to agree to the continuance order.
It cannot be easy for anyone to work up enthusiasm for the measures. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said much with which I agreed. I cannot believe that any hon. Member feels enthusiastic or gung-ho about the measures or believes that, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) put it, we are doing other than going through the annual ritual of agreeing to the measures. Yet, as I say, it would send the wrong signals not to approve them. We have a duty to continue to maintain what order we can in Northern Ireland and accept that, as Lord Colville says in his report, there is no other choice but to maintain our security and military presence there to ensure that civil war does not break out in Northern Ireland.
Lord Colville comes to the depressing conclusion—perhaps it is the most that he is able to say—that life is


simply liveable in Northern Ireland. In the same vein, our agreeing to the renewal of the measures tonight merely represents our minimalist objective of allowing life there to be just about liveable.
Surely we can do better than that, and this is where I disagree with some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). He talked about excluding members of the Democratic Unionist party—for example, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—from the talks process, if that would ensure that some sort of easy agreement could more rapidly be reached.
It would be absurd to exclude people from any part of the community in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, East spoke with passion and vigour, as he always does on such occasions, about the reality of life for people in the unionist part of the community. In the same way, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke with passion and vigour about the effects of terrorism on the people he represents in the nationalist part of the community in Northern Ireland. No great prizes would be won by excluding either side from the talks process.
Surely we yearn for the day when Sinn Fein renounces violence and becomes part of the process. Let us remember that "Sinn Fein" means "ourselves alone." That sums up the whole problem of people who simply want to look after themselves and their own interests. We desperately need not to exclude people but to listen carefully to what all parts of the community are saying.
Reversing the blood bath and having another alienated group of people in Northern Ireland—on this occasion, the 'unionist community rather than the nationalists, who have been alienated in the past—would not solve any problems. That is why I believe that the process of talks, difficult though it is, and the process of political progress with which the Secretary of State has so steadfastly persevered, are the right way ahead.

Mr. Mallon: I had hoped to make this point in my speech, but I forgot to do so. Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I am not in favour of excluding anyone from anything. Any future talks must be inclusive and include everyone possible. I certainly have no desire to exclude anyone.

Mr. Alton: I am reassured, although not surprised, to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. He must be right. We need the maximum involvement of everyone in Northern Ireland to make political progress. We have to deal with the democratic deficit there.
Although political progress alone may not overcome terrorism—on this, I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East—unless we fill the political vacuum we will continue to be in trouble. Such progress can be brought about only by real leadership on the part of the politicians of Northern Ireland, all of whom I admire as individuals. I have visited many of their constituencies and have seen for myself what they have to endure.
I am amazed by their personal stamina and courage in the face of so much tragedy. I enormously admire the way they represent their constituents' interests and their stance against terrorism.
I imagine that, as the years pass, all that must take its toll—day after day, they hear of friends, relatives,

neighbours or political associates being killed. It would be surprising indeed if, after all this has gone on remorselessly, they could be expected to come here and participate like members of a friendly debating society. It is remarkable that they can co-operate as much as they do
Cardinal Daly, in his booklet "Dialogue for Peace", put it very well:
The problem in Northern Ireland is fundamentally a political one. It is the problem of establishing credible institutions of government able to win the allegiance and merit the trust of both communities.
The security problem mirrors that, too. The security institutions must win the trust and confidence of both sides of the community. There is no doubt that confidence is undermined and that the cause of reconciliation is jeopardised by events such as the Stalker affair and the cases of Annie Maguire, the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. If these emergency powers lead to any abuses in Northern Ireland, they will continue to endanger opportunities for political progress.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) intervened to highlight the case of John Matthews. In common with other hon. Members who have been following the work done by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) on behalf of John Matthews, I have received a letter from his uncle., Danny Kelly. Speaking of his nephew, he writes:
My nephew has never been in trouble with the law before in his life. This is his first time ever being brought before a court. Since John graduated in Geography from Queens University, Belfast in 1992 he has been working and living openly in London with his aunt in Wood Green, north London.
John was put in an identity parade, in which he agreed to take part to try to dispel allegations against him. The witness did not positively pick him out. In his letter,
Danny Kelly says:
The witness was convinced that John was not one of two persons who hijacked his taxi and his remarks at this ID parade clearly expressed that. It has now just become known to us that this ID evidence has now been withdrawn by the police at the latest court hearing.
Mr. Kelly continues:
The forensic evidence also raises doubts because it has not been clearly defined by the police, and due to the unreliability of forensic allegations in previous cases one has to ask again why the police proceeded in this case".
The Irish Times of 27 May states:
According to Irish community activists in London, the 11 people arrested after the April 24th NatWest bombing included a young man who left Belfast earlier this year after the IRA had shot dead his brother. Irish community groups fear that there may be a recurrence of the events of the mid-1970s when the British police forces felt under pressure to respond with arrests to IRA outrages.
If a mistake has been made in this case—I cannot say whether one has been—we should listen to the representations such as those from Mr. Kelly. So as to ensure that the security forces are not further undermined by the conviction or attempted conviction of the wrong person, I hope that the Secretary of State will be open to that.
For the future, we need a far more credible system to uphold the administration of law. Surely the logic of the Anglo-Irish process leads to the idea of a joint security commission, and perhaps some system of examining magistrates who can probe cases of the sort that I have described. In the long term, I would also like joint courts and the joint enactment of legislation such as that under discussion here. The Dail should be asked to pass identical


legislation concurrently. That would show that both Parliaments are committed to the cause of extinguishing terrorism and of cherishing the democratic ideal.
We must also redouble our efforts to deal with the financing of terrorism. It is an oxygen line that pumps money into organisations such as the IRA, much of it from the United States of America. After the terrible Warrington outrage. I met Mr. Colin Parry, one of the most courageous men I have ever met. His boy was killed in that bombing. He has indicated his wish to go to north America to tell people there what happens to families who get caught up in acts of terrorism.
Within days of Mr. Parry's statement to that effect, it was traduced by members of Noraid. In The Irish People, Martin Galvin tried to turn Mr. Parry's statement on its head. Downing street was good enough to send me a copy of the report which appeared in The Irish People after I wrote to the Prime Minister telling him of Colin Parry's initiative. Noraid had quite erroneously tried to give the impression that the British Government were launching a propaganda exercise to try to capitalise on the deaths at Warrington.
We have to realise what we are up against, but it is right to encourage people such as Colin Parry and Susan McHugh, whom I visited in Dublin recently. She and thousands of ordinary people in Ireland and in this country are saying that they have had enough of this terrorism—here, I echo the remarks of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—and they deserve a response with all the force that we can muster. We must particularly ensure that the funding that still pours into the terrorist organisations is stopped.
After two years of the operation of the new laws, there have as yet been no convictions or sequestration of funds from terrorist groups. We know that many of them are involved in thuggery and gangsterism of the worst sort —not unlike that of the Mafia. This goes way beyond the terrorism that emerged 20 years ago after the civil rights demonstrations. It is essential that we get to grips with it and ensure that the money used by these organisations is reinvested in the work towards reconciliation that needs to be undertaken throughout these islands.
This is not an Irish problem. William Gladstone pointed out how extraordinary it was that the genius of the British people had failed them in this one area, and it has continued to fail them over the century that has passed since then. The solution has continued to elude us. It is absurd that in this one remaining corner of western Europe the old hatreds and the twin houses of hatred and terrorism should persist, enmeshing and embroiling so many of us.
I am proud to hold, besides my British citizenship, Irish citizenship, because of my mother's origins. I am proud that my three children hold Irish citizenship too. There is so much in both our traditions of which we should be proud. We must build on the things that we hold in common as Europeans. That is how to combat this terrorist plague and to get our relationships right. Unless we do that, we shall come back here year after year into infinity to renew orders of this kind.

Mr. Roger Stott: I listened with great interest to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—as I do whenever he

makes a contribution in the Chamber—but I disagree with his implication that we should exclude a party in Northern Ireland from any future constitutional talks about the way in which the Province is to be governed. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's frustration with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley); I feel it myself. I think that the hon. Member for Antrim, North should not persist in his preconditions for the resumption of talks, but that should not in any way prevent his party from taking part in the talks which I very much hope the Secretary of State will begin as soon as possible.
I have listened with interest, and some disappointment, to the debate. As on previous occasions, we have heard, unfortunately, the Government rehearsing their all-too-familiar arguments in respect of emergency legislation. During this debate—and probably more so in the debate on renewing the Prevention of Terrorism Act—some Conservative Members seemed to imply that the Labour party is somehow soft on terrorism because we have legitimate differences with the Secretary of State on the issue of emergency legislation.
Hon. Members who have known us for long enough will know that my hon. Friends and I find that attitude contemptible. I wish to place on record, on behalf of the leader of my party and the shadow Northern Ireland team, that we utterly condemn terrorism, whoever the perpetrator. Some Conservative Members do the people of Northern Ireland a disservice by suggesting that the House is not totally united in its abhorrence of terrorist atrocities.

Dr. Joe Hendron: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, in terms of the legislation and its application, that on the streets of areas like west Belfast, Strabane, Newry and ordinary towns and cities, it is important that the security forces and the police treat young people with dignity? To do otherwise is morally wrong and counter-productive, because in such circumstances the security forces become the recruiting sergeants for the Provisional IRA and the UDA.

Mr. Stott: I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), who represents an area where there is an inordinate level of security force activity—not just once a week, but practically every day. I will have more to say about that later.
Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I pay tribute to the security forces in Northern Ireland—who deserve all our support—and to the prison service and the judiciary, who inevitably have to carry out their duties in a very hostile environment. Without their commitment the situation in Northern Ireland would undoubtedly be far worse.
Every Member of the House is elected to represent the interests, and protect the freedoms, of his or her constituents. It is also the responsibility of each right hon. and hon. Member fully to justify any curtailment of those civil rights. As the Opposition have consistently stated, the Labour party accepts that there may be a case for emergency powers in order to maximise the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland. It believes, however, that certain provisions in the order are unacceptable—and unacceptable use of emergency legislation does more to undermine democratic credibility than to combat terrorism.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said, the Labour party has long called for the visual and sound recording of interviews. He explained that measures can be taken to ensure that material of a sensitive nature is not released. This method of interview would not only protect the suspect, but furnish the security forces with evidence that could be used to refute any allegations made against them—which I feel is very important. The Government allow this practice in the rest of the United Kingdom; why are they not prepared to allow it in Northern Ireland? The Labour party believes that the Secretary of State should ensure adequate safeguards for both the accused and the accuser. Should the Government—after the Secretary of State's careful consideration of the matter—refuse to introduce video or audio taping of interviews, many people in Northern Ireland will be legitimately entitled to ask the Government what they have got to hide.
It is not only the failure to provide adequate safeguards in interviews that denies the people of Northern Ireland access to basic human rights; what the Labour party cannot accept are the powers contained in the legislation and in the Prevention of Terrorism Act which enable the Government to detain suspects in Northern Ireland without charge.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said, if an Executive erodes the basic rights of a substantial swathe of its own citizens—however admirable its objectives may be in doing so—the limitations that it seeks to place on democracy serve only to hurt the majority of law-abiding citizens. The Government are suspending the rule of law against which the terrorists are so vehemently fighting. In a democratic society, such a move represents a victory only for the tactics of terror.
It is because of these and other fundamental differences —which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon. Hull, North and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) set out in graphic detail—that we cannot support the legislation as it stands. The continuing problems in Northern Ireland have, sadly, not been met by an adaptable or appropriate response from the Government.
Twenty years ago, temporary measures were hurriedly introduced in an attempt to tackle the desperate situation in Northern Ireland. Now, 20 years later, advanced media techniques continue to bring, with disturbing clarity, the murders of innocent people and the carnage of bombed towns into our living rooms. That should send the strongest possible signal to the Government, who have presided over this tragedy for the past 14 years, that the annual review of tired legislation is not enough and is clearly not working.
It is with a profound sense of regret that we are unable to find a consensus on this most important matter. I fully understand the position taken by some Northern Ireland Members on the question of emergency powers—they and their constituents have been in the front line of terrorist atrocities for over 20 years—but when emergency powers such as those contained in the order erode people's basic civil liberties, and given the corrosive effect that that has

on the vast majority of both communities in Northern Ireland, the Labour party cannot, regrettably, support renewal of this order.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates): The House has had the opportunity to give full consideration to the powers in place to continue the fight against the terrorists in Northern Ireland—powers which remain necessary and will be used resolutely as long as terrorism persists.
Many interesting and worthwhile points have been made during the debate. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) welcomed, as I did, the prospect of a change to the extradition laws in the Republic of Ireland. An undertaking has been given and we look forward to that becoming less of a thorny problem as a result of the change in the law. The hon. Gentleman said that the only reason why he advised his party to vote against the legislation was that internment was on the statute book, and the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) gave some other reasons.
The requirement to have internment available has to be there. It is not just in Northern Ireland, but in the Republic of Ireland. It is a legacy of the days when it was used on both sides of the border. My right hon. and learned Friend has no intention of introducing it in the present circumstances, but not to have it there as a fallback if circumstances demand it would be neglectful and the Government are not prepared to allow that to happen.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) talked about the independent assessor. On that matter he is plain wrong. He will see that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 says:
The Independent Assessor—

(b) shall receive and investigate any representations concerning those procedures;
(c) may investigate the operation of those procedures in relation to any particular complaint or group of complaints;
(d) may require the GOC to review any particular case or group of cases in which the Independent Assessor considers any of those procedures to have operated inadequately".

Therefore, the powers that he complained were not there, are there.

Mr. McNamara: With respect, the Minister has misquoted me. The substance of my complaint is that the independent assessor may look only at procedural matters. He may not look at the substance of the complaints. That is still the psosition and it is what Lord Colville says. Looking at the procedures is not sufficient.

Mr. Mates: If that is the hon. Gentleman's view, we must leave it there.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) made a notable intervention. He asked about the difference between the problems we face and the problem faced by other European countries. I can answer that in one word. It is the border. The border provides an opportunity for terrorists to move between two police forces and two legal systems. That is what makes the problem so difficult.
The figures for the past 10 years show that the RUC's border subdivisions, which have only 19 per cent. of the Province's population, have had 40 per cent. of all the deaths as a result of the security problems. They have had


over 50 per cent. of all the explosives used and almost 30 per cent. of shootings. That is the uncomfortable and difficult fact. It does not mean that we are not working as hard as we can, with the security forces and the Government in the Republic, to try to overcome the problem, but to fail to mention it would be to ignore one of the real issues we face in trying to come to terms, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup put it, with the terrorist problem in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend also mentioned a central anti-terrorist body. There has been a great deal of argument about that over recent months. It is chiefly a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Father of the House said that it needs to be looked at by a higher level of Government. I can assure him that during the 13 months in which I have been doing this job it has been given a great deal of attention by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Committee on Northern Ireland, which is a new feature since the general election. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Prime Minister is taking a close interest in this matter, as are senior members of the Government of the Republic. It is through that increased co-operation and determination that we look to more success in the future.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) echoed some of the Chief Constable's words about the changes in the law and mentioned the remarks of the chairman of the Police Federation this morning. He may be aware of what the chairman of the Police Federation said, but I am not sure that he knows what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said in reply. His words will he on the record and will be reported tomorrow, so I shall not repeat them.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the intimidation of lawyers. Our position on that is clear. If it is taking place, it is wrong. It is unacceptable and we will not tolerate it. However, if it is taking place, we must be given evidence. The problem is that it is repeated from body to body, the most notable being one from the United States, and it is alleged as if it is a proven fact. If it is happening, we would like to have evidence. It is intolerable in any society, especially ours. However, such evidence has not been forthcoming and, until it is, we can do nothing but condemn it if it is happening and long for the day when evidence will be produced.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley objected to the phrase:
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
He may find that phrase objectionable, but he agreed to it before the talks began. It was on the basis of his agreement that the talks took place. As he knows, the talks lasted for some months and made more progress than he suspected would have been the case at the start.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) gave us a familiar diatribe against the Anglo-Irish Agreement, calling it a concession to violence and saying that it was the concession of joint authority. Once again I must tell him that he is wrong. The agreement states specifically that its provisions imply no derogation from the sovereignty of either state and nobody has said anything like the remarks that the hon. Gentleman claimed have been made.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned the case of one of his constituents and the report of what had happened in court. It is a tragic case.
However, for the security forces, the car was stoned by a group of youths. Those responsible were quickly arrested. They were brought to trial on various charges, including manslaughter, for which the available penalty is a sentence of life imprisonment. What happens thereafter cannot be the responsibility of the RUC, the Government or the Northern Ireland Office. It is a matter for the courts. The courts are independent. They heard the evidence and took a decision, which is as the hon. Gentleman stated. That is not something for which we can be blamed.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) raised the takeover by the IRA of Cullaville. It was not seen by the security forces in the tower because that area is in dead ground. Had the security forces seen it, they would certainly have reported it and something might have been done about it. However, it could also have been a come-on. The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that the IRA is up to all sorts of ruses such as that. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the security forces saw it and did nothing does them a disservice and is not the truth.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Markethill and the complaint that he said that he has raised with me. He did not mention the constituent's name. If he provides me with the name, I shall have the case looked into and write to him. Without that knowledge, it is difficult to say anything here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) talked about the delays in justice. We have been working hard on that. The working party looking into the delays has made a great deal of progress in identifying where they are. There will he resource implications which we will have to look at when the time comes. I hope that as a result of the work that we have done in the past nine months we can reduce considerably the delays in bringing people to trial, as that is a bad part of the administration of justice now.
My hon. Friend mentioned the terrorist finance unit, as did many other hon. Members. We are well on the way to achieving some success there. It is a complex matter and it is better to proceed slowly and succeed than to proceed in haste or under pressure and to fail. Therefore, I must ask hon. Members to be patient.
I must tell the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that we are not gung-ho when we bring these provisions to the House. The day that my right hon. and learned Friend and I feel that we do not need to ask for the provisions to be renewed will be the happiest in our time at the Northern Ireland Office. We do this because it is fundamentally necessary.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill was rather too gloomy when he said that life is livable in Northern Ireland. It is a great deal more than that. A great deal of life in Northern Ireland is very good and for many people life is normal. Their spirit is remarkable, but their life, jobs and prosperity are better than some would have us believe. I do not want the message to go out that all is gloom there because as far as I am concerned it is certainly not.
The application for the powers may cause inconvenience, but at the end of the day we shall have to implement them resolutely and, given the circumstances, as sensitively as possible in pursuit of the Government's first aim in Northern Ireland—the eradication of terrorism.
One day it may no longer be necessary, but until that time comes the legislation must remain in place. That is why it is impossible to understand why the official


Opposition cannot support us. They bring one or two minor points to our attention, but without the legislation the terrorists would have far greater opportunities to wreak the havoc that they have been wreaking, and it is the duty of all hon. Members to support us in the Lobby.

It being Seven o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion, pursuant to Order [21 May].

The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 204.

Division No. 289]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
 Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Aitken, Jonathan
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cormack, Patrick


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Couchman, James


Alton, David
Cran, James


Amess, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Ancram, Michael
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Arbuthnot, James
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Day, Stephen


Aspinwall, Jack
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baldry, Tony
Dover, Den


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Duncan, Alan


Bates, Michael
Duncan-Smith, Iain



Batiste, Spencer
Dunn, Bob


Beggs, Roy
Durant, Sir Anthony


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dykes, Hugh


Bellingham, Henry
Eggar, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Body, Sir Richard
Evennett, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Faber, David


Booth, Hartley
Fabricant, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, Andrew
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bowis, John
Forth, Eric


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bright, Graham
Freeman, Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
French, Douglas


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gale, Roger


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gallie, Phil


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gardiner, Sir George



Burns, Simon
Garnier, Edward


Burt, Alistair
Gill, Christopher


Butcher, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Butler, Peter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair



Butterfill, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Gorst, John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carttiss, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Cash, William
Grylls, Sir Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clappison, James
Hague, William


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Coe, Sebastian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Colvin, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Congdon, David
Hannam, Sir John


Conway, Derek

Hargreaves, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Harris, David





Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hawkins, Nick
Moss, Malcolm


Hawksley, Warren
Needham, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Nelson, Anthony


Heald, Oliver
Neubert, Sir Michael



Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hendry, Charles
Nicholls, Patrick


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Robert
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Norris, Steve


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Horam, John
Ottaway, Richard


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patnick, Irvine


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Pawsey, James


Hunter, Andrew
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jack, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jessel, Toby
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Redwood, John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rendel, David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Richards, Rod


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Key, Robert
Robathan, Andrew


Kilfedder, Sir James
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kirkwood, Archy
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Knapman, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knox, David
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sackville, Tom


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Legg, Barry
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Leigh, Edward
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lidington, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacKay, Andrew
Spink, Dr Robert


Maclean, David
Spring, Richard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sproat, Iain


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Madel, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Malone, Gerald
Steen, Anthony


Mans, Keith
Stephen, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sumberg, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sweeney, Walter


Mates, Michael
Sykes, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Milligan, Stephen
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mills, Iain
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moate, Sir Roger
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)






Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Whitney, Ray


Tracey, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Tredinnick, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Trend, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Trotter, Neville
Wilkinson, John


Twinn, Dr Ian
Willetts, David


Tyler, Paul
Wilshire, David


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Walden, George
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wood, Timothy


Wallace, James
Yeo, Tim


Ward, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Waterson, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watts, John
Mr. David Lightbown and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Sydney Chapman.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Ainger, Nick
Dafis, Cynog


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Darling, Alistair


Allen, Graham
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Austin-Walker, John
Denham, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Harry
Dixon, Don


Battle, John
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bayley, Hugh
Dowd, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bermingham, Gerald
Enright, Derek


Berry, Dr. Roger
Etherington, Bill


Betts, Clive
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Blair, Tony
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Boyce, Jimmy
Fatchett, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fyfe, Maria


Burden, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Byers, Stephen
George, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Callaghan, Jim
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gordon, Mildred


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Thomas


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gunnell, John


Clelland, David
Hall, Mike


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hanson, David


Coffey, Ann
Hardy, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Harman, Ms Harriet


Connarty, Michael
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hendron, Dr Joe


Corbett, Robin
Heppell, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Home Robertson, John


Cox, Tom
Hood, Jimmy


Cryer, Bob
Hoon, Geoffrey





Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Hara, Edward


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Patchett, Terry


Hoyle, Doug
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pike, Peter L.


Hume, John
Pope, Greg


Hutton, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Illsley, Eric
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Ingram, Adam
Prescott, John


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jamieson, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Reid, Dr John


Jowell, Tessa
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Keen, Alan
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rooker, Jeff


Khabra, Piara S.
Rooney, Terry


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leighton, Ron
Rowlands, Ted


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ruddock, Joan


Litherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livingstone, Ken
Short, Clare


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Simpson, Alan


Llwyd, Elfyn

Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAllion, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McFall, John
Soley, Clive


McKelvey, William
Spearing, Nigel


Mackinlay, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


McLeish, Henry
Stott, Roger


McMaster, Gordon
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Madden, Max
Tipping, Paddy


Mahon, Alice
Turner, Dennis


Mallon, Seamus
Vaz, Keith


Marek, Dr John
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Walley, Joan


Martlew, Eric
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Meacher, Michael
Wareing, Robert N


Meale, Alan
Watson, Mike


Michael, Alun
Wicks, Malcolm


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wigley, Dafydd


Milburn, Alan
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Miller, Andrew
Wilson, Brian


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Winnick, David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wise, Audrey


Morgan, Rhodri
Worthington, Tony


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Wray, Jimmy


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wright, Dr Tony


Mowlam, Marjorie
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mudie, George



Mullin, Chris
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Mr. John Speller and


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 20th May, be approved.

Crossrail Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I must inform the House that the Speaker has selected the instruction in the name of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) but not the instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I suggest that it may be for the convenience of the House to debate the instruction together with the motion for Second Reading:
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that it shall have particular regard to the financial justification for Crossrail in the light of the proposals for the privatisation of British Rail, to the proposed method of financing Crossrail in the light of the Government's announcements that it should be substantially funded by the private sector, and to its interrelationship with other rail proposals across London which have been put forward since the Central London Rail Study was completed.

Mr. David Lidington: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a private Bill that we are debating this evening. It is promoted jointly by the British Railways Board and London Underground Ltd., and was deposited in the House in November 1991. As a result of further studies conducted by the promoters into the details of the proposed route, the promoters deposited an additional provision to the Bill in the House in January 1993. The promoters have statutory duties to provide or secure railway services and to co-operate with one another in the performance and exercise of their duties.
I should at this point pay tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) who acted on behalf of the promoters of the Bill until his elevation to the ranks of the Government. I hope that the House will be reasonably tolerant of my efforts in taking over the Bill at what must stand as pretty short notice.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lidington: I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks). I know that he will, as always, be trenchant on behalf of his constituents, whatever legislation we are debating.
The purpose of the Bill is to seek powers to construct the crossrail route. Right hon. and hon. Members will doubtless have read a considerable amount about the crossrail project, but it may be for the convenience of the House if I summarise the main purposes of the Bill.
The crossrail project was one of the recommendations of the central London rail study published in January 1989. It involves the construction of a new underground railway in twin tunnels deep underneath central London, commencing west of Paddington station and ending east of Liverpool street station. At both the eastern and western ends of this central London stretch, the new link would connect with existing railways running out, in the west, to Aylesbury and to Reading and, in the east, to Shenfield.
In the Bill, the promoters seek powers to allow for the constructions of platforms at Paddington, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon and Liverpool Street, connecting with existing London Underground and British Rail stations. These works would permit

interchanges with eight London underground lines and with British Rail at Paddington, Farringdon, Moorgate and Liverpool Street stations.
At Stratford, in east London, passengers would be able to change from crossrail to the docklands light railway and the proposed Jubilee line extension. The Bill also provides for other works both within the greater London area and in neighbouring counties, to enable the project to go ahead.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): May I say how welcome it is to see, in the additional provision to be inserted, that reconstruction of part of Northwood station in my constituency, with all necessary works and conveniences connected therewith, is proposed? This will be most welcome to my constituents, who will be able to get to the City and beyond to their places of work and, on occasion, for recreation. Now that it is proposed that this be in the Bill, the objections that I had to it previously can be graciously withdrawn.

Mr. Lidington: I am very grateful, as I am sure that the promoters will be, to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood. He, too, has been very active in lobbying the promoters on behalf of his constituents, and I am glad that he is satisfied with the results of his efforts.
The objectives of the crossrail project are to relieve pressure on the most crowded sections of the Central and Metropolitan lines of London Underground and the great eastern inner suburban services of British Rail. Crossrail will also ease congestion at both Paddington and Liverpool Street stations and provide better, direct access to and from London for people in Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Hertfordshire and Essex.
I certainly know from my own constituency experience about the very strong backing for this project from the Thames Valley chamber of commerce and industry, Buckinghamshire county council and Aylesbury Vale district council, who see the crossrail route as very important for the continued prosperity of that area of the country.
In the longer term, further environmental benefits will ensue, because a good, efficient crossrail route will make it more attractive to people to travel by train to, from and under London, instead of going by road.
Crossrail also fits into a long-term pattern of adapting London's railways to meet the extra demands from passengers over the years. As the House knows, most of the present underground network was built before the second world war. Since then, London Transport has extended the Central line in 1947–49, built the Victoria line in 1969, extended the Piccadilly line to Heathrow in 1977, and, more recently, built the Jubilee line from Baker Street to Charing Cross, and the dockland light railway. British Rail has upgraded and electrified many existing routes into central London and has introduced the Thameslink service between the northern and southern halves of the capital.
So I believe that crossrail is intrinsically worth while for the immediate benefits it brings, and also provides what one might term a flexible piece of infrastructure, a keystone for the railway network to serve London and the home counties in the future.
There will be the possibility of additional connections from crossrail into new railway lines which it is proposed might be built. The service to Heathrow airport is one example. Connections to Kent via the Channel tunnel link


are another example, for that link is likely to meet crossrail just beyond Stratford, and it is perfectly feasible for a junction to be built there, which would join the Channel tunnel direct link into crossrail and the rest of the British Rail network.

Sir Trevor Skeet: One is naturally concerned about the route in central London. The Harpur Trust has a big estate there, and I should be glad if my hon. Friend would say what route crossrail takes when it leaves Paddington station and comes to Bond street and Tottenham Court road. Does it follow Oxford street, New Oxford street and then up to Theobalds road—in other words, keep to the main arteries, so that there will be no anxiety about the stability of buildings on either side of the route—or does it cut through some of the area where it could cause building disturbances?

Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising points which I know are important to a great many of the property owners along the proposed route, who have indicated their objections and registered them by way of petition.
The proposed route would run south of Oxford street and New Oxford street, under St. Giles, and then cross Holborn at about the site of the present Holborn tube station, running parallel to Holborn, slightly north, running under Red Lion square and Gray's Inn, and then over to Farringdon station.
The promoters appreciate the concern of many people about the environmental impact of their proposals, and I would be happy to supply my hon. Friend with a copy of the very detailed environmental statement that they have produced, so that he can see exactly what is proposed for the route and the measures that the promoters wish to take to alleviate any environmental damage.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for that information, and I want to trespass on his time for one moment. The route goes very close to Holborn station. Will there be an interchange at Holborn as well, because this would be extremely convenient for the area concerned?

Mr. Lidington: I am sure that the promoters of the Bill will have listened carefully to my hon. Friend and will be interested to consider the proposals that he is putting forward tonight.
The crossrail project is being designed throughout to comply with the best British Rail and London Underground standards for safety, operations and passenger comfort. Particular thought is being given in the design of rolling stock to seating and standing areas that will help disabled people—not only wheelchair users, but people with other infirmities or disabilities.
The initial plan envisages a service of 24 trains each hour in each direction during the rush hours, with capacity for up to 32 trains an hour in each direction. The plan is for crossrail, once it is operational, to run for up to 19 hours a day.
I said that the promoters had deposited with the House an additional provision to the Bill. The reason is that, since the original Bill was deposited in November 1991, the engineers and planners working for the promoters have refined their scheme and talked to a number of the residents and landowners along the proposed route. The

powers sought in the additional provision are as a result of those studies. I will not list them all, although I know that the promoters will be happy to give any hon. Member with an interest in the details of the project a full explanation of their proposals.
However, to illustrate what the additional provision seeks to do, I draw the attention of the House to the proposals with regard to Harrow, where the original route plan envisaged that a small area of allotments would be taken to provide for some new sidings. Local residents objected to this and, as always, they were ably led in their lobbying by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), whose silence in the House never precludes his active endeavours on behalf of his constituents.
As a result, the crossrail team looked again at their plans. They found a different way of achieving their original objective, and therefore incorporated a new enabling proposal in the additional provision.

Mr. Richard Page: I am a firm supporter of crossrail if it does anything to relieve the road traffic in my area. My hon. Friend mentions the extra provision. He will be aware that Moor Park, which is just up the line from the station that he has just mentioned, was in the plan, then out of the plan, and now I understand that it is back in the plan. The latest position is that the works necessary for services to stop at both Moor Park and Northwood are to be sought through parliamentary approval, but there is no firm commitment to proceed with the service stopping at Moor Park.
May I ask my hon. Friend, who has so nobly taken on this task at short notice, whether he has any information at all about whether British Rail or London Underground is thinking of providing further information about whether it will be using the two stations, or whether this is just a convenient method of getting the provision into the Bill and then not offering my constituents a service?

Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page). I feel that I have a particular interest in the points made by him and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), as I spent most of my childhood in their area and know the two stations well. The promoters are seeking powers to provide a stopping service at either Northwood or Moor Park or both. They will make both a technical and a commercial assessment of which is the best of the options available.

Mr. Wilkinson: Both.

Mr. Lidington: I know that both my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood will press their case very hard. The promoters hope that they will be permitted to include the additional provision in the Bill if it is passed tonight and considered by a select Committee.
It is quite understandable that concerns and questions should be expressed about a project of this scale, and especially about its environmental impact. As required both by the Standing Orders of the House and by European Community directives, the promoters have published environmental statements dealing both with the main Bill and with the additional provision. Copies have been deposited in the House, and those statements set out
in detail measures that will be taken to avoid or reduce any adverse impact that the project may have on the environment.
Let me cite in particular the safeguards proposed in respect of construction of the project. All inter-station tunnelling will be done from two main work sites at either end of the central London tunnel—the first at Royal Oak, just west of Paddington, and the second at Bethnal Green, east of Liverpool Street. Large quantities of spoil will be removed, and materials will be brought in, by rail, thereby significantly reducing any need to use lorries.
The promoters are also discussing with the local authorities involved a code of construction practice that would be incorporated in construction contracts. The code would set down limitations, standards and procedures for dealing with items such as hours of working, noise, dust and air pollution, the protection of watercourses, site hoardings and safety. Effective monitoring would be carried out to ensure that the promoters' contractors complied fully with those requirements.
So far, some 314 petitions have been presented against the Bill. The promoters are now discussing the petitioners' problems with them in the usual way, to try to find a mutually satisfactory agreement in each case. The normal form of settlement is for the promoters to give the petitioner, in return for withdrawing his objection, a legally binding undertaking recording the agreement reached. Where differences cannot be resolved, the petitioners will of course be able to put their objections to the Committee considering the Bill.
I know that one matter that especially concerns some petitioners is that of compensation. The promoters' position is that they will comply fully with the compensation code now in force, or with any variation in the compensation code enacted by Parliament. As most hon. Members know, the term "compensation code" is shorthand for a considerable body of statute and case law developed over the past century and a half. The code was last reviewed by Parliament as recently as 1991, when the House passed the Planning and Compensation Act of that year.

Mr. John Butterfill: We all appreciate that the review was a recent review. Does my hon. Friend accept. however, that, given a scheme of the scale and likely duration of crossrail, there is likely to be a special problem, particularly as regards blight? My hon. Friend will be aware that eligibility for the service of blight notices excludes leases shorter than three years, premises with a rateable value of more than £18,000 and investment properties. He may not be aware that the owners of St. Anselm's house have already had to go into receivership because of the blight that exists. An unusually depressed rent—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions are intended to be short. In this debate, each intervention has been longer than the last.

Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) has taken a long-standing interest in these matters. I know from my own constituency casework of hard cases. I can think of an

example of a business caught by the 18,000 rateable value rule which has been blighted for more than a decade by a long-delayed road scheme.
However, my hon. Friend's criticisms should be made to Ministers rather than to the crossrail promoters. It would not be right to ask the promoters alone to make special arrangements and depart from the compensation agreements laid down by Parliament. Any questions about disputed compensation should be a matter for the Lands Tribunal, which is the body set up by Parliament to deal with such questions.

Mr. Butterfill: Would my hon. Friend therefore agree that, given the scale and likely time scale of crossrail, that is a matter that the Select Committee should consider seriously?

Mr. Lidington: I am sure that the Select Committee will take the whole question of compensation seriously and will want to listen carefully to the arguments of any petitioners who have been unable to reach an agreement with the promoters.
Another matter which I know has caused concern is the inclusion of clause 18, which seeks to disapply statutory controls over alterations to listed buildings. The reason for that clause is that it is essential that the Bill gives the promoters the power that they need to build crossrail. That could not be achieved if, after Parliament had authorised the project, the promoters then had to go through a completely separate procedure under the planning Acts to demolish or interfere with buildings currently listed, or even buildings that are not listed now but which might be listed in future.
I emphasise, however, that the promoters are aware of the need to minimise the environmental impact of crossrail upon the built environment. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich, with his detailed knowledge of crossrail and his new responsibilities as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, will be working hard to make sure that crossrail not only goes ahead but goes ahead with a minimal impact upon the valuable built environment of central London.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman is doing a very good job at short notice. Has he had an opportunity to study the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure? The point on which he is touching—the right of promoters to override the various planning processes—concerned that Committee greatly. Has British Rail been in discussion with English Heritage? Has English Heritage petitioned against the Bill, and, if so, will British Rail on this occasion allow it to put its case, as it has not done on previous occasions?

Mr. Lidington: I have not studied the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but he will know better than I do that this is probably the last major private Bill of its kind that will come before the House, and that any future projects would be dealt with under the new procedure that has recently been authorised. I think that it would be wrong, however, to delay the project and risk its future by saying that it should go to the back of the queue and start again under the new procedure.
The promoters have offered to consult both English Heritage and the individual local authorities concerned as soon as the need for works affecting a listed building or building in a conservation area is clear, and before any


building is interferred with. The promoters face a slight difficulty, because it is difficult for them to predict, when they are still talking to petitioners, exactly which buildings will be affected and how.
That is why schedule 6 sets out a long list of buildings affected by clause 18. At first sight, that list seems daunting. However, I assure the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and the House that the promoters currently believe that it will be necessary to interfere with a very small number of listed buildings or buildings in conservation areas. Their current thinking is that perhaps only three listed buildings would need to be demolished for the project to go ahead successfully.
I want to refer briefly to finance. Crossrail is a major infrastructure project. I am sure that the House will be aware of the general constraints on public expenditure at the moment. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will say more about finance later. On behalf of the promoters, I would like to make it clear that they would be very happy to work with private sector partners to get Crossrail built.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I want to raise a familiar theme, which no doubt the Minister will anticipate. Does the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) understand that, when we are asked to approve legislation either on Second Reading or Third Reading. one of our problems when there is no guarantee about the money for a project, and when days of staff time in this place and thousands of pounds are spent on preparation by the promoters, is that we must remember that the money has not been provided for the previous legislation relating to London railways—the Jubilee line?
Will the hon. Gentleman use his influence to ensure that he will get more support and encouragement for crossrail if the earlier project receives the green light before we make further progress on this project?

Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I assure him that I will remain the hon. Member for, Aylesbury while I speak on behalf of the promoters in relation to crossrail.
I want now to refer briefly to the instruction tabled by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). I have no doubt that he will seek to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker. He has strongly felt and legitimate concerns about the project.
I believe that it is already quite in order for petitioners to raise with the Committee the list of subjects contained in the right hon. Gentleman's instruction. Similarly, it would be in order for the Committee to consider them. The promoters believe that the instruction is superfluous, and that the House should be content to leave it to the Committee to decide upon the extent to which it wishes to inquire into the matters listed in the instruction. For those reasons, I ask the House not to accept the instruction.
Crossrail is important for London and for the south-east of England. British Rail and London Underground carry three quarters of all the commuters who travel to central London. That amounts to more than I billion passenger journeys a year. It is in the interests of those passengers that the project goes ahead.
However, I believe that the project is also a national issue. If London is to compete effectively with Frankfurt, Paris, Tokyo or New York, it must have a modern, reliable

and efficient system of rail transport. That is what international trade and finance and British commuters want and expect. For those reasons, for the London and regional interests and because I believe that the project is in our nation's interests, I commend the Bill and its additional provision to the House.

Mr. Brian Wilson: May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on his presentation of the Bill? I understand that congratulations are also due as the hon. Gentleman's wife gave birth within the last 72 hours. To be handed a Bill and a baby in the same week is beyond the call of duty for any Member of Parliament.
The Labour party has long supported the crossrail principle and will therefore support the Bill. We deplore the delay and uncertainty which have surrounded it so far and the fact that there are still so many unanswered questions. For all our discussions tonight, crossrail is still a paper project. With ths:. Jubilee line, the fast link to the tunnel and the west coast main line, there were repeated Government announcements of support in principle, but no substance to back them up or the leadership to ensure that those projects take place in a reasonable time scale.
In respect of crossrail, we still do not know where the money will come from. We do not know when work will start or what role the private sector will seek or be willing to accept. We do not know what conditions the private sector will insist on. In short, we still do not know if or when the project will happen. That is a strange way to plan the transport needs of our country for the next century. Indeed, it is a very Tory way.
The backdrop to this debate and to any debate about the railways this week must be the announcement of job losses by ABB Transportation in York and Derby. Nine hundred jobs have gone down the drain because of the blight—

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): What has all this got to do with it?

Mr. Wilson: The Minister for Roads and Traffic wants to know what this has to do with it. I suppose that he has been brought in to add weight to the Transport team. If he waits a moment, he will discover exactly what it has to do with it. I suppose that it is natural to move someone from running the national lottery to the Tory Transport team.
Let me explain what the job losses have to do with this. Unless the major infrastructure projects go ahead, the blight which the Railway Industry Association has warned against will deepen and continue and many more thousands of jobs will be lost in the railway industry.
The Minister for Roads and Traffic might like to examine the presentation document for the class 341 train for crossrail. If it had not taken years to get the project to this stage, if we had not had to drag the time from the Government for this Second Reading debate and if we were now talking about the project going ahead, the trains would be under construction, the design work would be in progress and we might have a flourishing railway manufacturing industry in this country.
Instead, the Jubilee line, crossrail, the tunnel link and the west coast main line are in no position to go ahead. That is why our railway manufacturing industries are being strangled. I hope that in that brief tutorial I have


managed to relate tonight's debate to my comments about the redundancies in York and Derby. Alas, many thousands more will follow if the present policies are pursued.
There cannot be many other pieces of legislation which have stood on the toes of so many of the good and the great. I hope that that will not be another reason for undue influence being exerted behind the scenes in respect of Government policy. The route which crossrail is designed to follow seems to pass the doors of just about every influential interest group in the country and, as everyone knows, many of them do not like it.
I understand that the estate agents are particularly opposed to the project. Magnanimously, they have made a small cottage industry out of advising others who are opposed to the project to their own considerable advantage. I suppose that that is a case of hedging their bets.
I had never expected to be lobbied by the Mayfair residents association. I regard it as a considerable diminution of my status that it should have seen fit to approach me. Of course, the many legitimate concerns must be addressed by the promoters, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury recognised. I stress that the legitimate concerns of ordinary citizens who live on housing estates and in the less fashionable parts of London and the rest of the crossrail route must be treated as seriously as the concerns of those who exercise influence in high places and who, in this matter, will certainly seek to continue to exercise that influence.
As the hon. Member for Aylesbury said, we will certainly hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and from other Opposition Members who have legitimate concerns about the project and how it will affect their constituents. I hope that there will be respect for those doubts and concerns on all sides of the House. It is totally incumbent on the sponsors of the Bill to go to maximum lengths to meet those doubts and concerns.
In particular, they should respect the principle that, when there is inconvenience to areas along the route, benefits should also be brought to those areas in terms of employment and improvement of communications. It would be unjust if areas along the route suffered massive disruption for five years or so until the project is completed and then at the end of the day had little or nothing to show for it. I hope that the principle of equity will be respected.
We deplore the lack of strategic planning for London and an overall vision for transport and communications in the Greater London area and beyond. We recognise that the scheme is to a large extent a child of the Greater London council and the era in which people were talking about the proper planning of transport in London.

Mr. Tony Banks: We put it forward.

Mr. Wilson: The current scheme was borne out of a 60 per cent. increase in passenger traffic on London Underground between 1982 and 1989. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) rightly says that the GLC put it forward. As a child of the GLC, he will undoubtedly elaborate on that theme later in the debate.
In January 1989, the central London rail study concluded that upgrading to the existing network would be effective in cutting overcrowding but that new lines were needed urgently if the long-term problems were to be solved. Of all the new lines proposed, crossrail would be the most effective in tackling the key problems of congestion on the central line and Network SouthEast services into Liverpool Street. In September 1990, the current crossrail route was safeguarded and detailed consultation began. It is a source of regret to Labour Members that it has taken almost three years to reach this Second Reading debate.
I examined as much of the proposed route as I could to familiarise myself with some of the details of the issues involved. I have talked to representatives of crossrail who have a commitment to making the necessary arrangements and safeguards to minimise the disturbance. Let no one kid themselves. We cannot have a project of this scale anywhere in the country without substantial disruption. Certainly, we cannot have a project of this scale in the centre of London without substantial disruption and that is a fact of life with which people will have to live. I recognise that many people throughout the country have had major upheaval because of infrastructural developments without a fraction of the consultation or the willingness to answer concerns and build in safeguards that has been shown by the sponsors of this Bill.
It is essential that buildings and other structures above ground level are protected and steps must be taken to do that. When I toured the area, I was struck not so much by the buildings that must be safeguarded as by the extent of architectural vandalism that has taken place over the past 20 years or so in many of the sensitive areas which we are now talking about safeguarding. I refer to some of the great squares through which the route will pass. Sadly, the damage was done in the 1960s and 1970s with grotesque buildings that should never have been permitted in the first place. I hope that, at least on some parts of the route, the effect of crossrail and the sensitivity that the developers must show will bring architectural improvement to those places, rather than further decline.
Certainly, there will be disruption and the job of the sponsors and those who will preside over them must be to limit that disruption and the impact on the environment, the people who live there, those who work there and those who have businesses there. All that must be extremely carefully guarded against. I hope that the sponsors will accept the principle that, simply because there is an open space, it should not be used as a building site in connection with this project. There are legitimate worries about that on many parts of the route.
While it is easy to say that a delicate garden in the middle of a west end square will be safeguarded. I hope that the same respect will be paid to public parks and open spaces throughout the length of the route. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked me to make that point, which he strongly endorses and advocates.
The benefits of crossrail will be to relieve overcrowding on the Central line, reduce journey times across the south-east, create 19 interchanges with the existing network, relieve overcrowding at stations by moving 30,000 passengers a day to change at Liverpool Street and provide better-quality trains. To return to my original point, there is a desperate need for better-quality trains to maintain a railway manufacturing industry. The project


will also mean diverting traffic away from the roads, which is important. There is a strong environmental aspect to the legislation, which is one reason why the Labour party supports it.
To comment on the work sites that will be used during construction, especially in anticipation of some of the comments which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney will make, one of the most interesting urban areas that I have examined in a long time is the area around Allen Gardens in his constituency. A wide variety of activities take place in that area. It is a heavily populated area with a mixed community. It has a city farm and a school and it is a market area. It is extremely interesting. I must enter the plea and, indeed, the expectation that, when the work is finished—if it goes ahead there—that area will be not only restored but improved and that the views of local residents will be taken fully into account from the start to the finish of the process.
Since the Crossrail Bill was deposited in 1991, the plans for the project have been refined. I have been told that only one listed building will need to be demolished completely and a further five listed structures will need to be partially demolished. It would be good if that total could be reduced further, but that is a matter for ongoing consideration.
We support crossrail, together with other major infrastructural projects on environmental and communication grounds and, perhaps above all, because we understand that we will not get out of this ghastly recession without such kick starts to the economy. Such projects play a key part in any Keynesian approach to economics. We will not get recovery unless we have major projects. Jobs and the multiplying effect in the economy come most effectively through projects of this nature.
There are various estimates of the number of jobs that will be created. It has been said that 60,000 jobs will be associated with the crossrail project. I have no first-hand knowledge of whether that estimate is on the high or low side, but, certainly, the project will be a substantial source of both direct or indirect employment.
For all those reasons, we support the Bill. In doing so, we tell the Government that this should not be the end of the process. It should not be the start of another long hiatus in which nothing much happens. The Bill will go to a Committee. I hope that it will not be bogged down for too long, although all objections and representations must be taken seriously and addressed. We want the project to go ahead on the basis that all the representations and concerns have been properly addressed.
That means that at some point the Government will have to get behind it. They will have to say where the money is coming from and underwrite funding, if necessary. They will have to give leadership—they cannot sit back, as they have done for years on other major infrastructural projects, and make woolly noises about the private sector getting involved. Nothing happens and months and years pass.
If the Government are serious about the project, they must say where the money will come from, give the necessary leadership and ensure that crossrail happens. They must do so sooner rather than later. If they prevaricate and if the process continues indefinitely, the people of London and the whole area served by crossrail will feel betrayed and let down by the Government yet again. Everyone who believes that the capital should have

a co-ordinated, modern transport policy will recognise again that, while the Tories talk big, they act very small indeed.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I welcome this opportunity to confirm the Government's support for the Bill. I wish to add my own words of appreciation of the work which was put into the Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat), whose ministerial duties have obviously taken him elsewhere. As my colleagties will appreciate, it was the most exquisite case of the biter bit or the poacher turned gamekeeper when my hon. Friend translated himself from the putative sponsor of the Crossrail Bill into the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage with responsibility for protecting listed buildings.

Mr. Dicks: British Rail is part of our heritage.

Mr. Norris: As my hon. Friend says, there is no doubt an interest there too. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich did a great deal of work in connection with the Crossrail Bill. I am sure that the whole House agrees that it is right to put on record a word of thanks to my hon. Friend for the valuable work that he did in bringing the scheme forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) has done a magnificent job in taking on the Bill at extraordinary short notice. To add to the comments made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), I gather that Mrs. Lidington—as it is proper for me to refer to her in the House—was so shocked at the news that my hon. Friend had taken on the job that she produced his son and heir three weeks early.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is more than we can say for crossrail.

Mr. Norris: Indeed, there was certainly no case of premature delivery there. The hon. Gentleman is right. But with his customary good humour, I am sure that he wants to wish Mrs. Lidington a happy time now with her new child. I am sure that the child will be a speed reader by the age of three if he is the scion of my hon. Friend. He will undoubtedly read at an early age of his formal introduction to the House at such an early point in his career. It is probably a parliamentary first.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury gave an excellent account of the Bill's scope and purpose so the reason for the Government's support is clear. He described what crossrail was and the benefits that it would bring to London, the south-east of England and the country as a whole. He spoke about the reduced passenger congestion that crossrail would bring, the faster and easier rail journeys that it would enable passengers to make into central London, and the better designed stations and trains that it would bring to London. Many of those benefits have been stressed in recent months by a wide range of interests.
We have received representations about the benefits of crossrail from many right hon. and hon. Members, local authorities, private companies, retailers' organisations, professional organisations, environmental groups and many others. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree about the importance of the benefits that crossrail will bring.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, for the fact that, in the midst of his customary expletives about the Government's transport policy in general, a few words of general support for the Bill leaked out. I know that it was a painful process for the hon. Gentleman. I congratulate him on having stuck with it and saying at the end that he would support the Bill. It was decent of him.
I recognise how painful it must be for him to find himself associated with the Mayfair residents committee. But it is an experience that will come to him, as it comes to us all. It is not painful and he will get over it fairly quickly.

Mr. Wilson: As a matter of fact, I was thinking of applying for honorary membership. I said at the start that we supported the Bill. I said that we had supported it for a long time. I wonder who has supported it for the longer time. I suspect that it is Opposition Members and particularly my distinguished hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

Mr. Norris: I would not dream of getting into a debate with the hon. Gentleman about whose is longer than whose. Suffice it to say that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming beyond reasonable doubt that he is a putative Mayfair resident and that he supports the Bill.
The Government attach importance to the benefits of crossrail. I stress the reduction in congestion because it is at the heart of our policy for transport in London. We are determined to maintain London's competitiveness with other major European cities such as Paris and Frankfurt. Reducing congestion is a key element in achieving that.
As the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, crossrail will bring relief from congestion on many critical parts of London's road and public transport networks. It will reduce congestion on the Central line, as we agree. Hon. Members will also accept that it will ease Liverpool Street station. It will reduce congestion on the Great Eastern commuter services from the east and on the Metropolitan line from the west.
The pressure of congestion on those lines is serious now. We know that as the country pulls out of recession, increased employment levels will quickly cause that pressure and congestion to grow. We must obviously ensure that London is fully equipped to deal with the problem before it becomes critical.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Minister is right to say that crossrail will ease the Central line, because to some extent it will be a fast addition to the Central line. But can he explain how it will ease congestion east of Bethnal Green on the Great Eastern? There will be no additional tracks as far as I am aware, other than Union rail.
To enable me to make perhaps a less critical speech than I otherwise might make, if I catch the eye of the Chair, will the Minister tell us, in view of the Government's legislation, who will own the tunnels and stations of crossrail? Who will run the tunnels and stations, as distinct from running the trains?

Mr. Norris: On the first point, the hon. Gentleman has an extensive knowledge of the matter and he will appreciate that the crossrail route will not run parallel to the Great Eastern. However, it will offer to a raft of people in that part of west Essex in particular an alternative means of accessing the west end of London. That will thereby relieve congestion on the Great Eastern.
The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that the major reduction of congestion will occur on the Central line. That is an important point. I often hear commentators divide expenditure on London transport between what is known as core expenditure' and what is known as mega-project expenditure, as if the two were different. I frequently stress the point, which I know is appreciated by many hon. Members, that the two are integral.
We are in the process of spending £800 million on the Central line. I know that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West is aware of the scale of that investment. Many of his constituents will benefit from it. But the congestion on the Central line will be reduced by only about 15 per cent. as a result of that upgrading. The major benefit in congestion reduction will come with the crossrail project.
I shall say a few words about finance in a moment. If the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will wait until then, I will answer his second point.
It is of course true that the employment levels on which the plans for crossrail were originally based—the assumptions in the central London rail study—are now some five years old. Of course, they look optimistic now because they were made before the depth of the recession became apparent. Traffic levels have certainly fallen since the assumptions were made. It may well take longer to achieve the forecast traffic levels, but we are confident that, with economic recovery, those levels will be achieved, albeit later than the central London rail study supposed.
I underline that crossrail is not a five-year or 10-year project. As with all the great underground rail projects in London, it is a project for the next 50 or 100 years.
Apart from the relief of congestion and the other benefits mentioned by my hon. Friend, crossrail also has an important role to play in the strategic development of London and the south-east. By providing a new fast link along London's east-west corridor, the project runs very much with the grain of future development in London. To the west, as we all know, the pressures of development have always been strong; to the east, there is the huge potential of the east Thames corridor, which the Government have recognised we should tap. One of the most important initiatives in that area is the high-speed line to the channel, the channel tunnel rail link.
Crossrail's benefits are closely linked with those of the CTRL. As the House knows, the Government's preferred route for consultation for the CTRL runs via Stratford into St. Pancras. The Kings Cross-St. Pancras underground station is already one of London Underground's most crowded stations. It could not readily cope with more than six commuter trains an hour coming off the CTRL. Part of the case for crossrail is that it would allow CTRL commuters from Kent to go westwards to the City and the west end, either through a direct link from the CTRL to crossrail or, if a stop is provided on the CTRL at Stratford, by changing onto crossrail trains there.
Meanwhile, the promoters have further developed the design of the project. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury referred to the additional provision which was deposited by the promoters in January. My officials and I


looked carefully at it. We noted that it contained several important new measures, including the provision for a possible new station at Northwood—which I am glad so delighted our hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)—powers to change the design of certain ticket halls, powers to improve the location of certain ventilation shafts and so on. I am satisfied that those extra measures that the additional provision adds to the Biil are necessary to enable the crossrail project to develop satisfactorily.

Mr. Dicks: Will my hon. Friend comment on taking crossrail into Heathrow? He has commented on many aspects of the proposals. Would he like to say a word or two about that?

Mr. Norris: I will indeed say a word or two about that. If it is possible in future to connect crossrail to the Heathrow express project which the British Airports Authority is taking forward with British Rail, that will provide a superb link from Heathrow into Paddington and thence into the City. For the first time it will be possible for people to get directly from a terminal at the country's major airport, which employs a great many people in my hon. Friend's constituency, to their office in the City of London via Liverpool Street station within a short period. That is one of the most exciting prospects that the crossrail project offers us.
Given that my hon. Friend's future is so closely entwined with that of Heathrow airport—he has never made any secret of that and he has been a campaigner for his constituents for many years—he should not underestimate the huge benefit to the viability of Heathrow that crossrail brings.
The irony is that at present there is a good train service from Gatwick to Victoria and a better train service from Stansted to Liverpool Street, but there is no rail service to Heathrow other than the Piccadily line. Any hon. Member who has had the pleasure of that service will know—

Mr. Tony Banks: It is appalling.

Mr. Norris: —as the hon. Gentleman says. that it is appalling. London Transport will accept that the hon. Gentleman means that it takes over an hour, it stops, there is nowhere to put luggage and it is an extremely inconvenient journey. The great advantage of linking the Heathrow express to crossrail would be to overcome that and to give the world's No.1 international airport the link into Europe's business centre that we as a nation must have.

Mr. Dicks: A point made in the discussion about the Heathrow express was exactly the point that my hon. Friend makes in relation to crossrail. It was said that a train running from Paddington to Heathrow every 15 minutes would be sufficient. Now it is argued that there is a little gap of 14 minutes between those trains and crossrail would fill it. In effect that means that every day there will be trains whipping past my constituents' homes continually. All I am saying is that my hon. Friend's argument for crossrail is the same as that made by the promoters of the Heathrow express.

Mr. Norris: No doubt it was, but for every person who is on a train there may be one fewer car emitting all sorts of pollution on its way through London to Heathrow airport and clogging up the M4. The benefits are

enormous. I hope that on balance my hon. Friend will consider the substantial benefits for those who live around Heathrow as a result of the reduction in the number for cars that will need to access the airport. Anything that enhances the viability of a major centre, such as Heathrow, to the degree that this project does is surely to be welcomed.
I must stress that crossrail is not the Heathrow express. My hon. Friend is right to link them. He suggests that somehow that is to be avoided and should be regarded with suspicion. I say that it is an opportunity of which we should enthusiastically take advantage.
We have already done a considerable amount of work on the way in which the project is to be taken forward. The House will recall that in announcing our public expenditure plans last November my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that we had been examining ways of increasing the scope for private financing of capital projects. He told the House of his decision to liberalise the rules for such financing. He also announced our intention actively to encourage joint ventures with the private sector where they involve a real transfer of risk to the private sector. He said that we would be prepared to consider such an approach for crossrail. That is precisely what we have been doing.
My right hon. Friend told the House in his Budget speech in March of the enthusiastic response that we had received to the private finance initiative. He said that we had concluded that it would be preferable to take crossrail forward as a joint venture with the private sector. We therefore set about re-examining the present proposals with a view to maximising the participation and financial involvement of the private sector and to securing the best value for money for the taxpayer.
Let us be clear what the initiative is about. Too often in the past the Government have treated proposed projects as being either wholly private or wholly public sector projects. We believe that there are considerable benefits to be gained, beyond the question of sharing costs and risks, from allowing private sector skills to become involved in the development of projects such as crossrail.
To answer a point made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, it is entirely right that the Government should be prepared to pay for social and other wider non-user benefits of a line such as crossrail. Nevertheless, we want to bring the entrepreneurial skills of the private sector to bear whenever we can: where it can tailor services to the market, increase revenue and exercise better control of our costs—in short, where it can invest its money at its risk and reap its reward. That process can also free scarce public funds to meet other important needs.
Before the hon. Gentleman comes back on that, let me make two points. First, that decision must be right, given that any Government of whatever complexion is faced with the finity of public expenditure and the fact that there will always be projects that although desirable are not affordable. That would be the case even if the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends were on the Government Front Bench, no doubt with him, or if the hon. Gentleman were where he is, and I hope that he stays there for a lot longer.
In that context it is important to look at the ways in which additional funding can be unlocked. That is what the private sector participation initiative does. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North about the regenerative potential of such schemes, and no doubt he is right. However, I see


nothing in the writings of John Maynard Keynes that justifies a poorly valued project, which has been poorly researched and offers poor value for taxpayers money being advanced as a public project merely because it would create jobs.
That is not the test that must be applied. The most important test is that the project represents genuine value for money and allows us to add to that which can be provided in the private sector either by public or private interest.

Mr. Shore: Can the Minister be a little bit more specific? He expresses his enthusiasm for private participation in the project, but what are the orders of magnitude of which he is thinking, accepting that the total cost will be around £2,000 million? What proportion of that does he expect the private sector to contribute? He has the report of the consultants' examination of the prospects, and surely it would help the House if it were made public. We could then judge the project for ourselves rather than take it entirely on the Minister's word.

Mr. Norris: We appointed consultants to look at the project to see whether it was a genuine runner as a joint venture and how it might be made most attractive. They reported to us last month that it would indeed be an attractive joint venture. We asked the promoters to proceed to the Second Reading on that basis. It would have been wrong for us to do so had we not had that reassurance.
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) appreciates that I cannot anticipate what the final division of costs or investment might be as between the public purse and the private sector. That would quite properly be a matter for negotiation. The Government are not contemplating, however, simply a project that is substantially in the public sector to which the private sector might merely offer a small contribution. We are looking for the private sector to be fundamentally involved in taking the project forward. That would imply fairly sizeable funds being injected by the private sector.
What really underpins the argument, however, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, is that the project involves the private sector taking on a measure of the risk. It will be involved in identifying an income stream and the way in which that can be rewarded. Its own ability to control costs will be crucial because that will add value for those who will ultimately be the users of the scheme.

Sir Trevor Skeet: This extremely good scheme must be fostered because a private venture is an excellent idea. Assuming that it will be run on the basis of a 50:50 arrangement, and bearing in mind that we have a public sector borrowing requirement for next year of £50 billion, will the Government give a guarantee that they will come up with the money?

Mr. Norris: I hesitate to say to my hon. Friend that he is too long in the tooth because that might not be considered flattering, but he is experienced enough to know that I am not here to give guarantees for expenditure that will occur way beyond the public expenditure survey. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, however, that the project is a classic private sector one.
To assist the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, I should say that the public sector benefit is assessable in terms of what I described loosely as the non-user benefits. That refers to reduction in congestion, the greater facility for business that is provided by the scheme and so on. That is a tried technique of assessment of which, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman had some direct experience when he held ministerial office.
If the project is taken forward as, essentially, a private sector one, but is underpinned by the concept of the public sector contribution reflecting those non-user benefits, it is a perfectly sensible marriage. I do not believe that it would be in the taxpayer's interest to reveal the full details of the reports which the crossrail team received and for which the Government called. I believe that the case is a perfectly sustainable one. It is not a question of wanting to keep secret the contents of the report because a great deal of it will necessarily be made public as the recommendations are brought into play. They underpin the fundamental decision that this is a good project, which is worth supporting.

Mr. Spearing: I appreciate that the Minister shares our fundamental desire to seek proper transport in London. He will recall that, four years ago, I sent a memorandum to the Department advocating support for the scheme as against others. Surely the Government are in danger, however, of doing what they have done before by taking their own views in abeyance of practicalities. The railway will be extremely expensive to build because it will need many escalators and tunnels, a lot of ventilation and a great deal of remedial work.
How will the Minister get the revenue from the capital involved to pay a sufficient return to any private capital that he may raise, even if the taxpayer provides support that does not expect a return? Is he not aware that the tube never paid in its early days?

Mr. Norris: Yes, of course I am aware of that. I do not want to get drawn into the detail, however, because the House will be bored to tears and because I am not sure that it would assist.

Mr. Peter Snape: It would be fascinating.

Mr. Norris: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman a private tutorial on the subject at a place of his choosing.
The hon. Member for Newham, South should understand that the reality is straightforward. Were the scheme capable of being entirely financed at profitable levels by revenue raised from passengers there would be no need for the taxpayer to contribute. The scheme could then no doubt proceed. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, however, when one considers the concept of tunnelling in central London, which is an extremely expensive business, the scheme, of necessity, is unlikely to be profitable in itself. That is precisely where the taxpayers' interest in the social and other non-user benefits, which are conveyed by the scheme, come into play.
The Government have therefore made it clear that they are prepared to consider investment in the scheme to reflect those benefits. That is not only perfectly good common sense, but a prudent way in which to undertake projects of this size. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North is apparently not prepared to accept that that means that the amount that would otherwise be invested in the


scheme can now be available for investment elsewhere. I apologise to hon. Members for my behaviour just now, but the idea that there are no flies on me at last has some veracity.

Mr. Wilson: I thought that we were about to see the Government swot.
We know that the Minister paints with a broad brush, but could he focus a little, perhaps to the nearest half a billion pounds, on how much he expects from the private sector? I should have thought that he could give us a little help on that. Can he give us any idea of what he expects the private sector to do? Will it have an investment, operational or partnership role? Will the project be some sort of franchise enterprise? I am sure that the private sector would like to know what the Government have in mind for them, or is it all as vague as the fly that buzzes around?

Mr. Norris: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman on several counts. I do not believe that it would make any sense to negotiate in advance, in a vacuum. The precise form that any such agreement might take has yet to be determined and will no doubt largely depend on what developers tell us they believe is practicable. That is an important part of the process. There will be areas of interest where those in the private sector will say that we have got it wrong and that we will need to alter them if we want the proposals to succeed.

Mr. Tony Banks: What have they said so far?

Mr. Norris: It is clear from what they have already said that they would like appropriate legislation in place so that the powers to deliver the project exist before they invest and participate in it. Beyond that, they have made it clear that they are prepared to listen, as we are. I believe that the dialogue that we have developed with them is extremely constructive. It is not a broad brush issue—there is a great difference between expressing principles simply, which I hope we are capable of doing, and glossing over important detail, which we are not attempting to do.

Mr. Butterfill: When the consultants considered the viability of the project, in what terms did they consider the compensation code? The 1991 code did not envisage negative equity for the houses that may be purchased. There are people who can afford to maintain the mortgage payments on their houses, but if those houses where compulsorily acquired, the occupiers would be left with a debt and nowhere to live. Will that problem be addressed during the Bill's consideration?

Mr. Norris: I shall say a word on that subject in a few minutes, if my hon. Friend will bear with me.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) should declare his interest.

Mr. Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) asked me to declare my interest. I have no financial interest in the matter whatsoever.

Ms Mildred Gordon: Hopefully, my constituents will be spared the blight that threatens Allen Gardens in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) which is slightly further to the west, and will be spared the

problems of compulsory purchase and negative equity mentioned by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill).
Why does the Minister believe that the private sector will be forthcoming with the finances for the project any more than it has been for the Jubilee line or the extension of the docklands light railway? What does the private sector have to gain? Surely the Minister must accept that such major changes constitute a public service and must be undertaken by the Government.

Mr. Norris: There is a considerable qualitative difference between the examples given by the hon. Lady and the crossrail project. She will know that the Government's contribution to the Jubilee line is committed, provided that the private sector contribution is forthcoming. The hon. Lady has a strong constituency interest in the area, and I think that she knows that the private sector is picking up the pieces from the Olympia and York administration and has been prepared to negotiate on similar terms to provide the necessary finance.
When that is forthcoming, the line will commence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has always made that clear. I regard that as a straightforward developer-contribution project, which is not a precedent for what we are now discussing: We are talking about taking forward a project as a joint venture, which is fundamentally different.

Mr. Snape: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Norris: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will then allow me to proceed. I appreciate that the issue is important, but I am sure that the House would wish me to make progress.

Mr. Snape: I apologise to the Minister for not being able to wait for his private tutorial, but he cannot be allowed to wriggle off the financial hook so easily. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) said, the private sector has been less than forthcoming in contributions to the Jubilee line and has contributed only a small proportion of that development's total cost. The House deserves better from the Minister. We should know, at least vaguely—vagueness appears to be at the core of the Minister's speech—what proportion of the total bill for this massive but much needed project the Government envisage the private sector paying.

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. The private sector contribution to the Jubilee line extension is almost £400 million—a not insignificant amount of developer contribution. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—implicit in what he has said is the understanding—that crossrail is a different sort of project. It has been taken forward as a private sector project on terms yet to be established. It would not be in anyone's interest to negotiate now in a vacuum on a project whose shape we need to refine with those who are seriously interested in advancing it.
There is no shortage of serious interest in such projects. The easiest thing that one can do in banking is take deposits, but that does not make a profit. One only makes a profit when one invests. Major bankers all over the world are interested in creative ways of investing in major infrastructure opportunities.
Private sector participation may lead to some changes in the scope or timing of some of the works proposed. I fully expect that we shall be able to say more about that by the time that the bulk of the Committee work is done, but for the present, the proper assumption for petitioners to make is that the promoters will continue to require the powers for which the Bill makes provision.
I should make it absolutely clear that our adoption of the joint venture approach in no way undermines the agreements that the promoters may have reached with, or the undertaking that they may yet give to, people affected by crossrail. I unequivocally state that if those undertakings are inherited by a private sector interest through a joint venture, they will be honoured.
Once the Committee stage gets under way, there will be a wide range of issues for consideration—I shall now mention just two. The first is the subject of compensation, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth. West (Mr. Butterfill). I know that some people regard the provisions of the current code as inadequate to meet the specific circumstances that arise as a result of crossrail's plans. The Secretary of State for the Environment addressed that issue.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, earlier this year the Secretary of State looked at some of the issues raised by those who regard the code's provisions as inadequate. However, it is not long since the Government reviewed the compensation code prior to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. Therefore, the general view of my right hon. Friend is that the provisions strike a fair balance between the interests of landowners and the community as a whole, and he sees no immediate case for any further amendment.
Secondly, there is the issue of the way in which listed buildings are treated in the Bill. Clause 18 disapplies the normal statutory controls over the demolition and alteration of listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas. We decided that it would be appropriate for the promoters to include such a clause in the Bill when we gave them consent to deposit the Bill in Parliament in November 1991. That was an important decision and I shall remind the House of the background to it.
There has quite properly been much cross-party concern in recent years about the possible use of private Bills as a means of side-stepping conservation legislation. We accept that promoters should not as a matter of course be able to circumvent normal statutory planning consent procedures. But the statutory planning procedures should not be able to thwart Parliament's will. Important projects like crossrail should not be delayed and put at risk. Ministers responsible for such matters in the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trasnport reached agreement two years ago on the basis on which the Government would, in future, give consent to the deposit of private Bills including such clauses. It was agreed that such clauses would be allowed only in exceptional cases. The sort of scheme for which it would be appropriate to use such a clause would be a scheme of strategic importance promoted in pursuit of Government policy objectives.

Mr. Wilson: While we are on the subject of planning controls and straying outwith normal planning procedures, does the Minister agree that the administration of

the royal parks should not regard itself as being outwith planning procedures? The project's designers want to erect a ventilation shaft in Hyde park in a discreet way which I do not think would harm the landscape, but they should not act in a spirit that goes above and beyond planning controls. It may seem as improbable as me becoming a member of the Mayfair residents association, but on this occasion I am on the side of Westminster council.

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman should be used to having strange bedfellows on the project. He is right: the issue is important. In my discussions with the crossrail team, it has made it clear that it intends, where possible, to apply the most stringent standards to its negotiations with those interested either in listed buildings or buildings in conservation areas. I know it has been in considerable negotiation with the authorities responsible for the royal parks. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State who was recently at the Department for National Heritage can confirm that that was the case.

Mr. Wilson: Perhaps we can take advantage of the presence of the Under-Secretary and the juxtaposition of responsibilities to which the Minister referred. I was asking whether the royal parks would accede to the views of the local authority and the crossrail project. From what the Minister says, I gather that the Government will say, "Thank you very much, but no, you are not doing it, so you will have to put it somewhere else," which will cause more problems and provide further objections from local residents.

Mr. Norris: The matter is still under discussion between the various parties involved, so I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the conclusion. I underline that the issue is taken very seriously. That is true of the whole way in which the team intends to take forward consideration of buildings that are likely to be affected by the project.
That is the note on which I wish to end because it is for the Committee to take a view on the many detailed objections that have been the subject of petitions against the Bill. It is not for the Government, or for the House on Second Reading, to take a view on all those detailed points. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury has already described what works will be involved if Parliament confers the powers. Those, and the effects on petitioners, will be closely examined during the Committee stage of the Bill.
I assure the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney that hon. Members will examine in Committee the types of issue mentioned by him in his special instructions. So I do not believe that that instruction is necessary, nor that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), which covers very similar issues. Where they are relevant—as the hon. Gentleman will know from his long experience—the Committee will wish to consider them.
We in Government are determined to secure the future of London as a world-class city, for Londoners and for the international community. That means pressing forward quickly with crossrail as a joint venture between the public and private sectors. The project will bring enormous benefits, on many of which I and other hon. Members have dwelt at length. In view of those benefits, the Government support the Bill, which I commend to the House.

Mr. Peter Shore: I have standing in my name a motion
That the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months
and an instruction, on which I have taken note of what was said by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and by the Minister. I understood them both to say that my instruction was not necessary because, in the words of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, "they can take account" and because, in the stronger words of the Minister, "they will take account."
In view of those strong indications, I can safely leave my instruction, as it were, although I emphasise that it is important that the wider considerations which were mentioned in the instruction, and which relate to events since the crossrail project was originally launched, are seriously examined in the interests of all in London who wish to see the best possible expenditure of public and private money on the improvement of public rail travel in the London area.
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Aylesbury, who has served the House well. It is remarkable that he should have picked up the Bill, as it were, and presented it so quickly, and to have done so against the background of the great personal events about which we were pleased to hear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) kindly referred to my area, which is directly affected by the Bill, or at least by the line of the route, of which we are now aware. He spoke sympathetically about areas to which massive disruption is likely to be caused. I have no doubt that my area will suffer massive disruption; accordingly, I shall make a constituency plea before moving to some wider considerations of the whole issue.
It is an unhappy fact that the double large-bore tunnels will go from Paddington under the ground to Tower Hamlets, where they will come out in the Spitalfields area, which happens to be, on all the indices that exist, the most deprived area of London. The community there will be seriously affected by the development. It is an area of 9,000 people, formed of about 2,500 households, with a third of the population—the relevance of this will become evident —being under the age of 15. It is the largest concentration of Bangladeshi people in England.
That community has only one green open space available for general community purposes. That is called Allen gardens. It is precisely there that the tunnel will burst forth to the surface, heading for the viaduct. The effects of that will be considerable. Because it will be used as a work site, it will be out of action for almost the whole period of tunnel construction, which will be four to five years. Three substantial primary schools are located very close to Allen gardens and a large number of houses exist well within 100 m of where the tunnel will come out.
Anyone who has been near a large construction site will appreciate the great problems that face a community that is subjected to all the environmental disturbance—noise, dust and general congestion—that occurs in such circumstances. I hope that some compensation and mitigating measures will be available and that all possible means will be examined to ease matters. I am not hopeful that much can or will be done, so I am in favour of looking again at the precise route of crossrail.
I believe that there are alternatives. Indeed, some hon. Members have been supporting alternative routes in submissions that I have seen, and I hope that we shall hear more of that tonight. If the route cannot be altered or diverted in a way that will prevent the environmental outrage to which I have referred, I hope that tunnelling right through Tower Hamlets will be considered as an alternative.
Not only will the tunnel emerge in the Spitalfields area, but Allen gardens happens to be the very place chosen for a city challenge project. It is in its second year of city challenge. In other words, vast disruption will take place right in the middle of an area that is supposed, as part of the city challenge project, to be upgraded generally. Instead, it now faces great environmental deterioration. I hope that serious thought will be given to finding alternative solutions and that Allen gardens will not be used for this purpose.
I believe that we ought to say a little more about the origins of the crossrail project and look a little more carefully at the changes that have occurred since it was given the go-ahead. The Minister referred to the report in early 1989 by the then Secretary of State for Transport, from which I should like to quote:
London's economy has been growing strongly in recent years. This growth is expected to continue. More and more people are seeking -to come to work in the tightly packed central area. Parts of inner London, most notably Docklands, are being transformed … All this is putting severe strains on London's transport system, which is suffering from heavy congestion at peak times on both road and rail.
It was against that background that the two proposals were advanced: for a major upgrading of the rail network and for two major new developments—either crossrail, or the Hackney-Chelsea line, or both.
It is clear that the report assumes that employment would grow dramatically—hardly surprising, given that the study was carried out in 1988 at the peak of the economic boom. The projection was for 100,000 more jobs in central London by the turn of the century; a higher projection added another 150,000. Three years on, we know that these are not realistic figures. Far from a growth of 150,000 passenger movements, there has been a decline of about the same number. I cannot believe that that has not had a serious effect on the results based on the earlier models.
On 29 March, I asked the Minister a question about that matter. The Minister, saying that he had already answered his hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), stated that he had provided figures from a reassessment carried out in 1991. That is now somewhat out of date; the real damage to London has been done in the past two years. The Minister went on to say:
A further reappraisal is in hand, and this will take into account the re-examination announced in the Budget on 16 March 1993."—[Official Report, 29 March 1993; Vol. 222, c. 1.]
I am not aware that the further reappraisal has been concluded or that, if concluded, it has been made public. It certainly should be. I cannot believe that the figures from a 1993 assessment are anything like as favourable as they were in 1988 when the original assessment was made. There has been an important change, so I hope that the Minister will inform the Committee of the latest assessment figures.
London is changing, and the more dismal job prospects are not the only factor to be taken into account. It is rather dangerous to assume that, in the next 10 or 15 years, we


will resume the growth levels of 1988 in central London. A movement away from central London is taking place, helped a great deal by new communications systems. People do not have to be brought together in vast buildings in the centre of London; they can be more easily dispersed. That trend will continue. Even if there is a revival in the London economy, there are vast empty office spaces in docklands which can and should be used.
Since the central London rail study reported, there have been other rail developments, including the Jubilee line extension to Stratford, the channel tunnel rail link via Stratford through the east end of London, ending, we think, at St. Pancras, and the upgrading of the Central line. Oddly, no one in the Government, British Rail or London Underground appears to have considered the impact of those developments on the case for crossrail, nor whether, and if so to what extent, parts of those schemes can be integrated with each other. I am thinking particularly of the likely prospect of a further tunnel being built from Stratford, going through Tower Hamlets and heading down towards St. Pancras terminal.
If that fairly large project has to be built, it would be sensible to determine whether crossrail can be linked with it. That may seem child's play; one would hope that people with computers would seriously study the implications of one such development for others—

Mr. Norris: The right hon. Gentleman's proposition was suggested by Tower Hamlets borough council. He is right to think that there is some superficial appeal in the idea of an alternative route such as the one that he proposes. I asked the promoters and BR to look carefully at it, because I have a great deal of sympathy with much of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. They, however, advised me and the crossrail team in unequivocal terms that the alternative does not meet some of the central decongestion criteria that the project is designed to deliver. I will not elaborate now; suffice it to say that the idea has been examined and, unfortunately, had to be rejected.

Mr. Shore: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I am sure that such connected studies should be a permanent feature of transport planning in central and Greater London.
Another recent change since 1988 has been the cut in London Underground's core budget, announced in the 1992 autumn statement. That cut amounted to 30 per cent. Instead of investment of about £860 million in the financial year 1993–94, the autumn statement showed a huge cut, to £570 million. It will continue in the following years.
Given the impact that those cuts in the core budget will have, we should think rather carefully before embarking on more major capital expenditure. The cuts will have a serious effect on London. They will result in delay to the upgrading of the Northern line, so that completion cannot be achieved until at least 2004, and deferral of essential track replacement programmes.
Implementation of the east London line extension will be deferred by two years and no station refurbishment will start in 1993–94. The refurbishment of the interior of District and Metropolitan line rolling stock will be cancelled, as will work on the modernisation of various signals. Improvement programmes for public address systems will also be deferred. Surely there is a serious

argument for spending whatever money we have available on upgrading the existing core network before embarking on a new project of this kind.
Another change made since 1988 has some bearing on the matter—the privatisation of British Rail, which, along with London Regional Transport, is sponsoring the crossrail project. The position is quite interesting. Under the previous arrangements, although the crossrail line will require 70 new train sets, British Rail had to account financially for only about six—the difference being made up by redeployment of orders already made for other services. As long as BR continued as a large organisation, such redeployments seemed reasonable, allowing a certain flexibility. The question that now arises is whether that flexibility can be retained. If it cannot, will there not be a substantial increase in the capital cost of crossrail?
I believe that the questions that I have raised justify a thorough and up-to-date review of crossrail's costing. If we have the costing, let it be published, together with the costings of alternative rail projects in London.
Another consideration, which has already been aired, must throw serious doubt on the whole project. The financing of crossrail will depend substantially on a major private sector contribution. I asked the Minister about the report from Warburgs and Bechtel, and we have had some exchanges about the matter. On 26 May, he told me:
The basis on which the private sector would contribute to the cost of the project will not be settled by 8 June."—[Official Report, 26 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 571.]
It is a pity that we could not use the information in today's debate.
The Minister tried to assure us that the private sector was willing and able to provide substantial finance. I did not find his argument entirely convincing—he may wish to intervene. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) rightly mentioned the difficulty involved in the financing of the Jubilee line extension. Private sector money was raised because it served an obvious developmental purpose. As long as it was viable, Olympia and York considered the development attractive and was prepared—as a large firm—to make substantial sums available.
As we know, the firm is now in grave difficulties. The firms that have tried to take over from it, and the banks associated with it, have encountered considerable problems in agreeing to raise £400 million—which, although it is a considerable amount, is only about a quarter of the total cost.
In this instance, if I understood the Minister aright, we are talking about much more than a quarter of the cost of crossrail. This rail development could involve up to 50 per cent. private finance. I wonder how that will attract the private sector. For one thing, the crossrail project does not present the necessary developmental incentive: there is no Olympia and York standing at the end of the line, saying, "Come to me." The return on capital must be substantial to attract private capital on the required srale, given the investment alternatives.
Am I right in thinking that one essential component of the deal that the Minister is working out is that private return will be subsidised or that return on capital will be guaranteed by the Government? Both those methods may help the Minister to get around the PSBR restraints. I should like to be sure that I am following his thoughts correctly.

Mr. Norris: The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the Jubilee line extension is about a developer contribution—no more, no less. It is a big developer contribution, but great value is being delivered. The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that Olympia and York had no difficulty with that. Of course, it was difficult to put back the pieces after the company went into adrninistration, but the principle remains coherent.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that this is a different beast. It is a joint venture in which the Government foresee the partner taking on a much more proactive role as risk taker. It will earn a reward based on revenues that it will have some responsibility for generating by making its service attractive. It will earn a return on its investment that will be paralleled by investment from the public sector in order to reflect the non-user benefits—benefits that are real but are not captured by the fare box.
That is a straightforward concept. The right hon. Gentleman is a distinguished former Secretary of State and has dealt with similar projects. He is fair in his dealings with this matter. This is where we put the private sector in the driving seat, not endeavouring to earn a return across the whole of the potential capital outlay, but recognising that the public sector will contribute that which reflects the non-fare box benefits to the community.
In that context, the fact that the contribution will be substantially larger is of no great significance. It is a different type of project attracting a different type of participant.

Mr. Shore: That gives us a clearer idea of what is in the Minister's mind. I suspect that subsidy and guarantees on return of capital will be necessary to get any significant private investment because these rail projects are not inherently profitable. They are not natural areas for private investment of the scale that is now being thought of.
Given the state of our knowledge, the lack of an up-to-date survey of the project, the lack of a review of the alternatives and the hazy view of the funding arrange-ments, it would not be sensible for the House to give the Bill a Second Reading now. Therefore, I urge strongly that hon. Members support my motion to delay consideration of the Bill for another six months.

Mr. Terry Dicks: I blocked this motion, together with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), mainly because of the suggestion of a construction at Hayes which will allow trains on the crossrail link to go into Heathrow. I have no real objection to crossrail in principle, but I wonder whether the promoters of the Bill—London Underground and British Rail—should be allowed to play with model railways on the front room floor, let alone be involved in a project as important as this. I should have thought that their track record should preclude them from being involved. That is a personal view built up after sitting for seven years on the Transport Select Committee.
It seems strange that the promoters want to expand from the original concept of going east-west and west-east through London to pop in to Heathrow to fill up the gaps that will be left by the Heathrow express. As I said to my hon. Friend the Minister in an intervention, the idea of the Heathrow express was put to my constituents on the basis

that it was essential to bring people from London, Paddington on a fast link to Heathrow because the underground and road links are bad. They were told that when the Paddington-Heathrow express was introduced, there would be no need for additional rail access to Heathrow.
My constituents reluctantly accepted it. I opposed it throughout and voted against it. We lost, but that is democracy. Now we have the concept of a fast link through London. The promoters say there will be a train from Paddington to Heathrow every 15 minutes and are wondering if they can slot in two or perhaps four additional trains a hour. They do not understand how it will affect people in my constituency.

Mr. Snape: Come on.

Mr. Dicks: The hon. Gentleman from a sedentary position says "Come on," but perhaps he should be aware that local opposition is mainly from the Labour party. My opponent at the last election is acting as the spokesman for petitioners against this scheme. Before he makes those comments and before those on the Labour Front Bench are so quick to support crossrail, perhaps they should bear in mind the fact they are talking with a forked tongue, locally and in the House.

Mr. Snape: I realise that any argument that the hon. Gentleman puts forward will be carefully weighed intellectually. He appears to be saying that he reluctantly accepted a railway line through his constituency, but that his constituents' lives would be more disturbed if that railway line were used by trains on a regular basis. With the greatest of respect, even from someone of the intellectual flexibility of the hon. Gentleman that appears not to be too sound an argument.

Mr. Dicks: The hon. Gentleman, with all his clever witticisms, has missed the point. He does not understand that the additional construction works needed for the crossrail trains will produce a worse environment for my constituents than there would have been with only the Heathrow express. If he feels that the lives of my constituents are so unimportant that he can be flippant, perhaps he should talk to his Labour party friends in my constituency, who feel even more strongly than I do. His flippant remarks, first from a sedentary position, are normal for the hon. Gentleman and are perhaps one reason why he has moved from the Labour Front Bench to the Back Bench.

Mr. Spearing: Three years ago when the Heathrow-Paddington fast link was proposed, I asked some questions about its extension into central London and the City. Are not the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, whatever their political allegiance, acting under some misapprehension? Is it not likely that there will be a service from Heathrow into Paddington and beyond, perhaps at 15-minute intervals and perhaps stopping at Southall or Ealing Broadway, which would be a very fast service and would perhaps provide a superior service to him, his constituents and users of Heathrow airport and not stopping at Paddington but going straight through?

Mr. Dicks: That may well be the case, but if there are to be trains going past the homes of my constituents every 15 minutes and guarantees and assurances are given along the lines of the development of the Heathrow express, the


proposal that trains should be going past their homes constantly throughout the day is rather mean, to say the least.
The small viaduct that allows trains to come out of Hayes station and turn left towards Heathrow will have to be extended for the crossrail trains. I do not think it is as flippant a matter as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) does.
Those who use Heathrow airport are beginning to believe that the need to develop the airport is of paramount importance for economic and financial reasons and to hell with the local community. The airport exists within the community and there has to be give and take on both sides.
Some airlines now want to fly their aeroplanes through the night. People want to extend the activities at Heathrow to the inconvenience of my constituents. Now crossrail wants to fill in the gaps between trains on the Heathrow express. Those people have to be reminded there is a community of people who live under the flight paths of aeroplanes at Heathrow with all the trials and tribulations. That should be brought to the attention of the promoters so that they bear it in mind in their further considerations.
Incidentally, my hon. Friend the Minister said just now that many of these matters are matters for the Committee. I was on the Committee which looked into the Dartford-Thurrock crossing and which made a unanimous recommendation about wind protectors on the bridge. When it came back to the Floor of the House, his Department overruled us and the Minister refused to believe what the Committee had decided. So how can we be sure that whatever the private Bill Committee suggests will be accepted by him and by his colleagues and pushed through? One does not know.
There is the problem of compensation. Perhaps I may read a short extract from a letter that I have received from a constituent:
When the CPO is served we hope to move to another site but the compensation system will not provide funds in sufficient time to build another factory and gradually transfer production so that our work flow and output remain unaffected.
My constituent feels that if compensation arrangements can be made in good time ahead of the change, to enable his firm to move its facilities, keep its business and service its customers' needs, it will be helpful, but the indications are that this will not happen. I just wonder why something cannot be done about that.
It is interesting that at the time of the Budget the impression after the Chancellor's speech was that crossrail would be on a back burner. For some strange reason that has yet to be explained, it has suddenly come forward at a rush, with no indication of where the private sector finance is to come from. Will the Minister explain in due course why we have moved from putting it on the back burner to this effort to get the thing moving? My constituents are rightly concerned about this and, regardless of the views of some Opposition Members, they expect their views to he heard and taken into consideration by the promoters. They would just like to know what is going to happen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), as a Whip, cannot take part in the debate, but he is with us on the Front Bench. I know that he wishes to welcome the Second Reading and the important new rail

connnections and speedier services that crossrail will bring for his constituents. He is grateful to the crossrail team for its careful work that led to the West Harrow sidings being moved to the north side of the tracks. These sidings will therefore be away from the houses in The Gardens, West Harrow which would otherwise be badly affected by the building work and the line when completed.
My hon. Friend would also like to pay tribute to the residents of The Gardens who campaigned with great skill and determination for this very sensible change—in particular, Mrs. Russell, who is not in the first flush of youth, but who provided the drive and enthusiasm for their campaign. A second petition from my hon. Friend's constituents was drawn up by the Pinner South residents association. They and my hon. Friend are grateful to the crossrail team for the time and trouble that it has taken to answer their concerns.
Provided that a few matters of interpretation of commitments are tidied up, the Pinner South residents association will withdraw its petition on a "first house" basis. What is vital to tilt association is that, where people have their whole outlook changed, trees and shrubs should be planted wherever feasible by crossrail to limit the intrusion.
I say that because my hon. Friend is unable to take part in the debate. My, view is that of strong opposition to crossrail, not in its concept but in this minor change to Heathrow, whereas the views that I have put forward on behalf of my hon. Friend are fully in support of the crossrail scheme.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I shall briefly restate the support of the Liberal Democrats for the concept of crossrail and for this Second Reading, which is a vital but rather belated step along the way.
It is regrettable that the Government have not been more forthcoming about the financing of the scheme because, as other hon. Members have said, their record on other major transport infrastructure projects, such as the channel tunnel high-speed link and the Jubilee line extension, has not been encouraging. The danger is that we will see a repeat performance with this, and some of the remarks by the Minister in his intervention in the speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) have not given much encouragement in this regard.
I wonder why he is unable to acknowledge that the crossrail scheme is not entirely a commercial viability and therefore to recognise the concept of what I think he describes as a social benefit which will accrue from it. Then it is assumed that the Government should calculate that by seeing what the private sector is willing to put up by way of finance and assuming that the remainder is the balance.
There is a gap between those two and it is essential that the Government fill that gap if the whole thing is ever to come about, because a perfect marketplace does not, and never will, exist. During the recession it has been very difficult to get the private sector to come forward with the money for these projects. This was unfortunate because, with 500,000 construction workers unemployed, many of them could have been carried out at a much better price than will be achieved when they finally get under way, if indeed they ever do.
The need for a project of this sort is clear. The increase in passenger traffic during the 1980s and the projections of further passenger growth in the decades to come are compelling arguments and make it necessary to carry out this project as quickly as possible. The overcrowding on other services in the capital is becoming unbearable already and, if the situation at Liverpool street, for example, can be improved, it will undoubtedly benefit many people in east London and west Essex, as the Minister mentioned earlier.
The earlier comments by hon. Gentleman to the effect that there was no connection between the drastic announcement from ABB and the delay in this project —some two years between the Bill being deposited and its coming forward for Second Reading—were very strange. I think there is a clear and obvious connection. The order for class 341 trains to the value of £500 million on the order books of that company might have helped to avoid this week's unfortunate announcement.
I refer briefly to some of the problems. Without wishing to involve myself in the constituency affairs of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), I have been approeached, as I am sure have many right hon. and hon. Members, by the London borough of Tower Hamlets, whose concern on behalf of its residents is understandable. There will undoubtedly be a price to be paid by people living in the area which the right hon. Gentleman has described. I endorse his suggestion that, if no more acceptable solution can be found, the prospect of a tunnel all the way to Stratford should not be lightly cast aside.
Compensation will be a matter of considerable concern to many and varied interests. That is something which the Committee will have to consider, as is the fact that many churches which are old and vulnerable structures are likely to be particularly at risk.
I believe that the House should give a Second Reading to the Bill as a statement of faith in London's future, but I believe strongly that the comments that have been made about the financing need to be addressed if this is not to become a complete white elephant.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: First, I want to add my congratulations to those offered by my hon. Friends to my neighbour in Buckinghamshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). It is pretty arduous and demanding to have a Bill and a baby at the same time. Which one will prove the more demanding only the passage of time will tell.
It is amazing that Network SouthEast moves 426,000 people in and out of London every day, out of the total of 1,042,000 who enter London during the peak hours between 7 and 10 am. We therefore have the problem, to which other hon. Members have alluded, of improving the existing system. We need to increase the capacity and flexibility of our public transport system, which continues to grow under ever-growing demands. The system needs modernising because we need to be able to attract more users off the roads and to provide visitors to and residents in our capital city with the system that they need.
It therefore gives me great pleasure to welcome today the progress on the crossrail project, which is badly needed, in my view, to refresh parts that other transport proposals have not yet reached in our city.
I should like to congratulate the engineers who have been working so hard on the crossrail project. Given that a White Paper on science and technology—the first for 20 years—has been produced recently and that we are starting to value the contribution of engineers to our society, they deserve a mention in the debate. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will join me in recognising their great contribution to technology.
As we have heard, the project will relieve overcrowding, both now and in the future, and will contribute to the infrastructure of the City, helping it to retain its position as a world leading financial centre. As a freeman of the City of London, I emphasise that that is close to my heart. The City of London corporation strongly supports the scheme, which it believes is good news for the quality of life of all Londoners. It welcomes the estimated employment effects: approximately 74,000 jobs in the planning and construction phases and a possible 25,000 new jobs in the city—the equivalent of filling 6 million sq ft of office space or more than half the space that is vacant in the city at present.
At the same time, the corporation, as a petitioner, has the opportunity to be present at the table to look at the details of the scheme with the promoters and to protect the interests of those affected by construction work. A scheme as large and imaginative as crossrail will inevitably cause disruption, but it will be for the greater and longer-term benefit of London and the surrounding areas. I am sure that what we have heard on the compensation arrangements will gladden the hearts of many of those affected.
I am sure that the dialogue with the corporation will continue to progress well, and the crossrail team has been making a good impression with those with whom it has been negotiating and carrying on discussion. The corporation said:
It may … be said that negotiations of a very helpful kind are proceeding between the Corporation and the Promoters, and there are gounds for optimism that they will be fruitful by the time a Committee stage is under way.
That bodes well for the future.
There will be disruption, and in my constituency there will be changes to all three of our stations—Chesham, Amersham and Chalfont and Latimer. Those stations will have to be altered with platform extensions, and I hope that their character will be protected and enhanced.
Both Chiltern district council and I are concerned about another matter—the car parking demand at all three of the sites. Parking has been a problem in the past and will remain an issue in the future. There has been some loose talk about cancelling the Aylesbury and/or the Chesham link, and I am pleased to see that enabling powers for that part of the route have been included in the Bill. It is essential that the crossrail project is completed right up to the Aylesbury link to ensure a more even spread and balance, certainly of park-and-ride commuters, who may travel from further afield to use this magnificent system. A greater recognition of the burden on local authorities at the end of the line should be taken on board by all the promoters and even perhaps by the Government when they are considering the standard spending assessments.
In the interests of the environment, we wish to encourage people to leave their cars and use an efficient public transport system, but we must ensure that they have safe secure areas in which to leave those cars. That is a particular problem at the Buckinghamshire end of the


crossrail route, and I expect that matter to be considered carefully. Some time ago, one of my constituents wrote a letter to my predecessor, saying:
Chesham needs its rail link to keep it on the map and for relief on our roads, and extra permanent car parking places —If Crossrail can bring these things to the Town it can't come soon enough.
I also seek reassurance on certain environmental matters such as tree lopping, which will be necessary in the Buckinghamshire area. We need to ensure that the overhead conductors are clear of our trees, but the county council has expressed concern about those arrangements and I hope that those details will be taken into consideration. Similarly, the fine detail of the five bridges that will have to be raised to accommodate the new service in my constituency will require close examination to ensure the minimum disruption for the inhabitants of Chesham and Amersham.
The county council strongly supports crossrail. In a letter to the Prime Minister in May, the council stated:
Buckinghamshire County Council strongly supports the Cross Rail project and in particular the proposals for improvement to the London to Aylesbury link
which, of course, passes through my constituency. The council continued:
Without this important investment the economic development of central and southern Buckinghamshire will be significantly frustrated … There is substantial local support for the Aylesbury-London Cross Rail project among the business community and among the local authorities. Any decision to drop the project or to postpone the Aylesbury link would be seen as a severe blow to all our efforts and would be very unpopular.
I hope that the promoters will continue their detailed consultations with county and district councils in relation to their concerns so that agreements can be reached on all sides.
I want to refer now to an issue about which I am not particularly satisfied at the moment, despite earlier discussions with the promoters—mobility-impaired access. Access is being provided at only 15 of the 41 surface stations. Although I recognise that step-free access will be available at all five central London stations, I am concerned about other areas such as my constituency.
It is proposed that in my constituency, access for disabled people will be made available at Amersham and Chesham, but not at Chalfont and Latimer because of its proximity to Amersham. I will be urging the promoters to reconsider that policy and I will press for an upgrading at Chalfont and Latimer. We are building a major transport system for the next century. For the marginal costs involved, particularly at this one station, I hope that the promoters will not seek to disadvantage a section of my constituents by not providing ease of access to a system which, after all, will last us for the next 50 years.
For any public transport system to be successful, it needs the basic criteria of accessibility, capacity and frequency. Let that accessibility be for all. Capacity and frequency are being increased and both will be welcomed by all travellers. They will particularly welcome the links to Heathrow and the channel tunnel route.
My constituents in Chesham and Amersham welcome the crossrail project. It represents a vital upgrading which will improve their access to other parts of the capital, the country and the continent. I wish the Bill well.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) referred to her constituency and I have a query about the map that the promoters have supplied.
However, I want to take a much wider view about the promotion and to begin by saying that if an hon. Member who was in this place in the 1850s were suddenly to return today, he would find himself on familiar ground. In the late 1850s, there were a number of Bills before the House, one of which succeeded and established the Metropolitan railway. The Metropolitan railway was the first London crossrail and virtually the first underground railway in the world. Questions of finance, planning, services, facilities and safety and all the issues which the Committee will discuss were also live issues 140 years ago.
There are more similarities than may be apparent. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to the City of London corporation. I am glad to say that the Metropolitan railway owed something to the then perhaps enlightened City of London with regard to its construction. At that time the City was engaged in slum clearance in the Fleet valley. As new roads were being built, it was decided to build the railway beneath them. That happened below what used to be called New road and which we now call Euston road.
At that time, there were also discussions about the salubrious residential areas of Paddington which would be connected to the City by the new rapid means of transport. No doubt the directors of the then Great Western railway saw an opportunity to extend their trains to the City. Hon. Members will be surprised to know that, until 1939, trains ran from Southall to Paddington, where an electric locomotive was put on and people were taken through to Aldgate. It is not a new idea. I see that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) has gone—[Interruption.] I am glad to see that he is still here.
The first terminus of the Metropolitan railway was at platforms 1 and 2 at Liverpool Street. Until recently, there was a link in the tunnel from the Metropolitan railway to the Great Eastern railway at Liverpool Street which was used by trains until 1904. Coincidentally, the last train to use that link was a railway excursion from Aylesbury to Great Yarmouth via the Metropolitan railway at Liverpool street, so we are not talking about anything new.
The finance of that railway was a major feature of discussions in the House at that time, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) rightly referred to that. It is not simply finance for the building and the rate of return. After all, even with dense traffic, not much revenue will be coming in over the expensive five miles of tunnel, with the stations, the lifts and escalators, ventilation and so on.
The Government are complicating matters through the other legislation in another place. When I asked the Minister who would own the railway, he talked at the end of his speech about finance, which was most interesting, but not about ownership. The first crossrail company that gave those extra facilities was the Metropolitan Railway Company. It owned the track and the tunnels, signalled the trains and allowed the Great Western to come in at one end and the Great Eastern at the other end.
The second crossrail company was the District Railway Company, with its original terminus at Mansion House. At one time, one could walk to Westminster underground


station and get a train to Windsor via the link at Ealing Broadway. Indeed, until the outbreak of war, one could get a train at Ealing Broadway and go all the way to Southend. We are not talking about anything new; we are talking about a new method of railway control. Who will run all the links to which the hon. Member for Aylesbury referred, and which the Minister rightly emphasised? Will they be run by the group of people listed by the Secretary of State in his recent press release? Will that provide the sort of rigidity that might not be for the benefit of everyone involved? As the Metropolitan railway provided that facility in its initial phase before it settled down as an inter-urban track, there is a certain rigidity in the maps provided.
I shall refer to such matters because we must think of this important tunnel with its facility in much wider regional terms than has been accepted so far. Indeed, the concept of a fast deep railway is not new. Such railways were built in New York about the turn of the century. In the 1920s, the Metropolitan and District lines had plans for deep-level tubes as express tubes to relieve congestion on the original routes.
Let us examine the wider aspects, especially the routes, frequencies and services that may be provided. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to the problems at that end of the line. What has not been made clear—although it may be in some of the literature that I have read—is whether the Metropolitan line service for rail electric as far as Amersham will be extended further or whether there will be electrification from there to Aylesbury. Presumably. the fast crossrail will provide the fast services, perhaps stopping at Harrow and Amersham and then stopping at Aylesbury, as will probably be confirmed.

Mr. Lidington: To assist the hon. Gentleman, the proposal is that, once crossrail is operational on that branch, the services that are provided at present by the Chilton line of British Rail from Marylebone to Aylesbury and those provided by London Underground from Baker Street to Amersham will be taken over by a crossrail route that serves Aylesbury and the intervening stations listed on the map through to Paddington. Trains will go to Paddington, rather than to Marylebone. The Metropolitan line will continue to run its service, stopping at all its present stations to Watford and Uxbridge.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record in the Second Reading debate. The debate is an opportunity to clear up points that people want to raise. The Committee will be able to refer to them.
There is some rigidity in the plan. Other options west of London might be considered and taken up. Everyone has said that the project will last for 50 or 100 years, so we should consider all the options now and ask why they have not been chosen. The hon. Member for Aylesbury mentioned some of the terminals at Paddington. What about Old Oak to High Wycombe? The line goes along the back of Old Oak depot. What about that magnificent line built in the early years of this century? It is a fast and wide railway from Old Oak junction up to High Wycombe. There are plenty of places along the line. I know that they are served by Marylebone at present, but the line is a possibility.
Reading is shown as the terminal. Of course, it will be, if electrification goes to Reading. Are we to suppose that,

Governments permitting, there will not be electrification beyond Reading, perhaps to Oxford? What about the Bristol main line? I am sure that Brunel would be shocked that we have not electrified his wonderful railway of that wide gauge, of which I shall say more in a moment.
What about the Heathrow link? I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury to ask about trains from Heathrow to perhaps anywhere east—perhaps Ilford or Shenfield. More logically, a link could go up the Lea Valley to Stansted airport. That would provide some airport logic, if nothing else.
One of the puzzles of the western entry is that the planned route of the crossrail proposal crosses the west coast main line overhead. There is already a rail chord joining it. Is there no possibility of trains coming down the west coast main line and occasionally using crossrail? That could happen perhaps at weekends—on Saturdays or perhaps for a rally at Hyde park on a Sunday. There is no reason why the Sunday services should not run at different times, as they do in other parts of London to respond to changed demand. I am sure that they will. If this magnificent facility is built, it will provide that great flexibility.
What about east London? The flexibility there is perhaps even greater. I have already mentioned the Lea Valley line up to Stansted airport and perhaps as far as Cambridge. The line is electrified in any case, with fast electric trains with sliding doors which go at about 100 miles an hour. Kings Lynn or Norwich would certainly be within range. I am sure that the Secretary of State would be interested in that.
What about the Chingford link? Chingford is being excluded from the possibilities. The line runs through Walthamstow. I told my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow—

Mr. Harry Cohen: For Leyton.

Mr. Spearing: It is in the same borough. I told my hon. Friend the railway story, which deserves repetition, of the old lady before the war at Liverpool Street, from which a 10-minute jazz steam service ran up and down to Enfield and Chingford. She said to a porter, "Please my man, when is the last train to Walthamstow?" The porter said, "Lawd bless you ma'am, there ain't no last train to Walthamstow." The trains ran every hour through the night. Yet Walthamstow is not being included as a possibility for crossrail.
The greatest conundrum has been referred to only in passing. The Government place great emphasis on the east Thames corridor, yet no Tilbury through line is shown, even though the electrified lines already exist. Another conundrum is the connection, if any, with Union Rail. The Government have said that fast trains will run from Kent into the Stratford area. Why should people from Kent be deprived of going direct to Oxford street to shop? Why should the people of Chatham not have the facilities that the people of Amersham already have? I do not know the answer, but at least there is a possibility. Such a link may not be the immediate plan, but there is nothing to stop it in the long run.
The biggest anomaly is the beauty contest that the Government have precipitated between Ebbsfleet, which is adjacent to Chatham, and Rainham and Stratford. Union Rail is not too keen on any international station at Stratford being defined as the terminus for international


trains. There will be some sort of competition—that is not too strong a description of what will happen—between now and October, and I do not want to prejudice it. My Newham membership will indicate where my sympathies lie.
There is a lack of railway logic in the project. It has appeared as a gaping hole, at least in the technical thinking. That is illustrated in the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) for Allen gardens and the junction with the Great Eastern suburban lines. At present, the operators are thinking of an old-fashioned flat-level junction near Allen gardens to join up with the suburban lines of the Great Eastern. If there is to be an international station at Stratford, perhaps on the north of the present station, with good connections, crossrail should be linked to that. There is at least a possibility of taking the tunnels a few hundred yards or a mile further east. There are sites readily available which would provide a good junction from crossrail not only to the suburban lines of the Great Eastern and to a link to Tilbury, but also to the fast lines to Norwich, the Lea valley and, possibly, Stansted. That would not cost much extra, bearing in mind the great cost of tunnelling in central London.
We should consider this not just in terms of the routes on the map, but as an imaginative public transport facility for the 21st century which is combined with inter-city transport and, no doubt, international transport through what the Minister interestingly calls the CTRL, which I translate as the channel tunnel rail link—not Union Rail.
I return to my opening theme. Who will own the track and run the stations? Will people be able to use a future travelcard on this link? I know that the Minister has strong views on that. Will crossrail be part of a super Network SouthEast of rapid inter-urban modern trains running at high speed and connected perhaps to some of the routes to the south which were electrified in the 1930s? Or will it be made impossible to operate through financial arrange ments that the Government are embarking on now, whereby the running of trains, the management of track, finance, the return on capital and the operation of joint stations—which there is bound to be with London Transport or whatever remains of it—will be complicated?
Will we have in the centre of London the problems that are spread around the country and that are implicit in the legislation that we have been contemplating? [Interruption.] I am glad to see the Minister for Public Transport coming into the Chamber at this point. So far, all that that legislation has presented has been complication after complication and difficulty after difficulty. If Railtrack does not survive—I cannot see it doing so—one of the agencies to operate, own and be responsible for the track will disappear.
To return to the theme with which I started, legislators of 140 years ago, tackling similar problems to those of today—most of the essence of this issue was present then—would be astonished and astounded that the Government are not contemplating a single operational entity responsible for this imaginative five to six miles of tunnel through which many services might come. We hope that there might be flexibility over the years as strategic planning gets back on the map. We hope that this will

serve London as its urban railways have done and serve it well. These issues must be faced fairly and squarely and dealt with properly in Committee.
The instruction proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney would ensure that that happens, and I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Aylesbury say that that will not be excluded from consideration. If any petitioner brings that up, he should be listened to with care and attention, because without proper co-ordination and proper arrangements to provide facilities for passengers and flexible ticketing of the type that has been successful in London in the past few years, the project will not be the success that it deserves to be.

Mr. Hartley Booth: I add to the warm congratulations that have been heaped on my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on acting as sponsor of the Bill and introducing it at short notice tonight. I also welcome the Government's support, both financial and general, for the Bill.
It may be regarded as something of a curiosity that 1, as the Member for Finchley, whose constituency is on the north-south Northern line, have the temerity to speak in a debate on the east-west route. I am concerned, however, about the general benefits of the project deriving to the City, London and my constituency and I have some interest in urban regeneration as I am the immediate past chairman of the British Urban Regeneration Association.
The course of the debate has led to one certain conclusion—our capital city needs the best form of infrastructure. No city can live, breathe or prosper without such infrastructure. At the moment cars move around London at an average speed of just 7 mph. There is notorious and widespread congestion on the underground. The Northern line, which will be served by crossrail, has a well-known congestion spot at Tottenham Court road. I hope that that will improve with the intersection with crossrail.
Repeated reference has been made to the risk to future investment in the City if we do not provide adequate infrastructure. I echo what my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) have said and emphasise it. Given that Singapore Hong Kong and Jakarta, on the ever more wealthy Pacific rim, are providing splendid new infrastructure to compete with west Europe, surely it is right for London to provide the best possible infrastructure. It is vital that we undertake projects such as crossrail.
I am persuaded from discussions with the promoters that the speed improvements—a saving of half an hour on the line from Aylesbury into central London and a quarter of an hour from Reading into central London—together with the comfort of the new trains and rolling stock, will mean fewer cars will travel on the roads in central London. That would be a crucial spin-off benefit of the Bill.
Concern has been expressed, however, bout the disturbance that the project will cause. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to that in connection with his end of the proposed tunnel. According to the promoters, 20 work sites will disgorge earth and soil from the ground; 16 of which will involve the movement of 100 lorries a day. That noise and disturbance will continue for up to three years of the projected five-year span of the project.
When faced with the stark facts, the promoters say that they are only too happy to abide by the construction industry's best code of practice, which means that no lorries will emerge from the work sites at night. The disturbance caused by digging and other extraction from the tunnel will be minimised. I hope that those disturbance problems will be ironed out in Committee. I have spoken to the promoters and I am satisfied that they are bearing the problems in mind and trying to ensure that our city, which needs the infrastructure, will suffer as little as possible during the construction stage.
I support the Bill, not because it will provide a kick start, as the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) suggested—I hope that it will be more of an electrical start—but because it will improve infrastructure in the working as well as the investment environment. I also support it because of the spin-offs that it will provide for my Finchley constituency—through Tottenham Court Road and the fact that it will mean fewer cars on the roads in all surburban parts of London. I believe that the project is well designed and a good buy. It will provide 150 km of new concept railway from a tunnel that is only 10 km long —it is demonstrably a good buy.
The project has a wider general benefit. The improvements that we gain tonight by way of the Crossrail Bill will, I hope, tomorrow apply to the Northern line.

Mr. Mike Gapes: I speak as a Member of Parliament who represents a constituency which has a station on the crossrail line but which will not, as far as I know, be substantially changed. There are strong arguments for improving Ilford station which we could consider. I believe that the Bill and the project should be supported as a necessary but insufficient step towards improving transport from east London and Essex across London.
If crossrail becomes a reality, it will significantly reduce travel time to Paddington. It will make it possible for people from my constituency to travel to Heathrow airport without having to allow two hours to get there and then waiting an hour for a plane which might be delayed. It is a long journey from Ilford and parts of north-east London to Heathrow airport. If the developments, including a possible change at Heathrow and the crossrail link to Heathrow are achieved, they will greatly benefit my constituents.
I have a number of concerns about the Bill. I do not want to repeat what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). We must consider an integrated long-term plan for public transport in our capital city. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) referred to 1947 and the development of the Central line. He may not be aware that London Transport is currently proposing to stop trains running between Epping and Ongar.
Over the years there have been significant cuts in the Hainault to Woodford line. Anyone who travels on the Central line into central London and stands on the overcrowded platforms at Leytonstone or Leyton when trains are delayed, as my constituents do, will know that it becomes positively dangerous for any more trains to empty their passengers on to the platforms as there is no

space. People who travel on that line will know of the need for significant improvements, as well as proper integration with the British Rail link.
We must consider the channel tunnel—its connection to Stratford and a passenger interchange at Stratford, which is vital. In that way we could take some of the pressure off the existing Central line.
But the real answer lies in investment in public transport. I refer not simply to crossrail but to the whole gamut of public transport services in London. I am especially worried on that count when I recall that last year's autumn statement led to drastic cuts in the investment funds available to London Transport. That has resulted in LT not being able to do the job that we all accept is necessary. Investment is vital if public transport in the capital is to work more efficiently. To achieve efficiency, we must have the necessary resources, yet we know from what has occurred with the Jubilee line and the channel tunnel that we cannot rely on hypothetical private sector investment—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That. at this day's sitting, the Crossrail Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Midnight.—[Mr. Conway.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be read a Second time.

Mr. Gapes: We cannot leave it to the whims of the private sector to do the job. Proper public investment is necessary, so while I support the Bill, I remain wary lest it is the precursor of further privatisation of London's public transport system.

Mr. George Walden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on taking the Bill forward. It is particularly welcome to me because it means that a matter of great and direct importance to my constituency is in the hands of an extremely capable and trusted hon. Friend and neighbour.
A glance at the map shows that my constituency is shaped like a funnel. Many people dribble down it into Aylesbury, so the line there is vital to many of my constituents, particularly bearing in mind the fact that my area is not well served by large roads. Clearly, we have a strong interest in the Bill and we welcome crossrail proceeding through to the Aylesbury link.
Access to London by road from my part of the world is highly problematical, as anyone who has traversed Western avenue will know. Road works along it are eternal. The A413 is in part reduced to what resembles a single track country road. It is all very primitive and old-fashioned and we need a modern high-speed, low-priced—an important point, to which I shall come —railway such as exists in some curious countries on the mainland of Europe.
The Minister should not be too upset at displays of scepticism over some financial aspects of the proposal. I am sorry to say that I vibrated a little in sympathy with some of the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). I say that because scepticism is justified when we remember that we have no examples of such grandiose ideas of public-private railway systems functioning, not just in this but in analogous countries.
Others, like me, find when they are abroad that private telephones work, so we vote for them here; that private electricity companies work, so we vote for them here; and that private water companies work, so we vote for them here. But I do not vote for the privatisation of railways for the simple and pragmatic reason that I have not experienced many of them abroad. Indeed, I have not used them abroad and, as a Conservative, I like the idea of seeing things working before I vote for them.
Hence, like some Opposition Members, I am worried about the financial future of the Bill. While hon. Members on both sides are saying that it is a grand idea, I am left wondering who will pay for it.
I differ from Opposition Members in that I am ready to say that I would like the Government to adopt a much more centralising, strategic role in transport planning, but I also believe it logically impossible to want that without stating where the money will come from. So, in order to maximise Government spending as necessary on proper transport schemes we must be perfectly honest about where the money will come from. It should, of course, come from a diminution of universal benefits and tax breaks, such as mortgage tax relief, which damage our economy. That money should be put into transport as a prime area of investment, to strengthen our economy.
Anyone who believes that this is a quirky view should read the article in The Daily Telegraph today, written by Mr. Howard Davies, the director of the CBI, who singles out transport as the prime area in which the Government should invest for the benefit of industry and the country.
I do not want to sound too doubtful. I should be delighted if the Government came up with a viable and swift scheme for public-private co-operation. That is what my constituents want. Conversely, I would be pretty fed up —as would many of my constituents—if this beautiful idea evaporated because it was not anchored in sensible finance.

Mr. Tony Banks: I should like to add my belated congratulations to the hon. Member for Ayslesbury (Mr. Lidington) on his double joy of a baby and a Bill. I assure him that there will be a lot more bills to follow the birth of the baby—but not of the parliamentary variety. It is just as well that the gestation period of his wife's baby was not as long as that of this Bill, which has taken some years to progress from conception to Second Reading.
I listened with great care to the speech by the silver-tongued Minister. I am afraid that I came to the conclusion that the Government's transport policy, particularly for London, was drawn up by Samuel Beckett. The Minister will of course recall that Beckett wrote a famous play called "Waiting for Godot". Clearly that principle seems to attend the Government's transport policy in respect of crossrail and a number of other proposed ventures. He will also remember, as he is a classically trained literary gent, that the two main characters in the play were Gogo and Didi, two tramps. I find it difficult to envisage the Minister of State as a tramp, the more so in view of the cut of his Saville Row whistle and of the amount of gold in his Rolex watch, which I understand the new Chancellor has been eyeing up

enviously—working on the assumption that there is probably as much gold in that watch as he will get from a new tax hike.
It is a lot easier to see the more crumpled and sartorially challenged Secretary of State as one of Beckett's tramps. Like Gogo and Didi, the two Ministers sit under the tree waiting for something to turn up. Today, crossrail; yesterday, the Jubilee line extension; the day before, the channel tunnell so-called fast rail link to London.
In London, all we get from these two political tramps is unending talk, press releases galore and interminable newspaper stories with headings such as, "Minister/ Government gives green light to crossrail—or Jubilee line extension, or something else". Then come all the follow-ups about the doubts and question marks, the delays and rethinks:
Jubilee line extension faces the axe";
Ministers consider flotation to fund tunnel rail link".
The idea of floating a tunnel is rather wonderful.
Minister minimises Jubilee line snag";
A compromise to get Jubilee line back on track".
The only consistent theme in all these schemes is that, rather like Godot, they never show up. I hope to continue my literary allusion a little longer, by adding that I trust that the Minister is familiar with the fact that Gogo and Didi contemplate hanging themselves on the tree if Godot does not arrive. Even in my darkest moments, I would not urge such a solution on the Minister or the Secretary of State; apart from anything else, they would probably bungle it. But I wonder how much longer they can hang on to their political credibility, in the absence of political action.
Recent talk on the street, as they say, was that the Minister had had enough: that he was becoming depressed, rather like the Prime Minister. This highly successful seller of secondhand Rollers—as we know he used to be—had eventually been laid low by his failure to sell a third-rate transport policy to London. I am glad to say, however, that the Minister is still with us, hanging on in there like a driver in a clapped-out Lada, wondering whether the wheels will drop off before or after his big end goes. What a way not to run a railway!
Opposition Members want crossrail to go ahead, and we shall vote for the Bill's Second Reading. However, we shall do so without illusion. I am not convinced that the project will come about while the present Government are in office. On this occasion, I hope that I am proved wrong; but I have a distinct feeling that, rather like the grand old Duke of York, the Minister is marching us up the hill tonight only to march us down again tomorrow. As other hon. Members have pointed out, if crossrail is built, it will relieve heavy congestion on the most overcrowded sections of London's existing underground network, and will take much traffic off the roads. We would welcome that in London and the south-east: it makes great sense, which is why—as my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said earlier—the original proposal came from the Greater London council.
We are worried by the estimated cost of £2 billion during the period to 1999. The Minister has given us no guarantee in regard to where the money will come from. Earlier, a little interchange took place in the Division Lobby between my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and myself. Like a number of other Labour Members from outside London, he asked why all this investment should go into London.

Mr. Don Dixon: It was nice to see my hon. Friend. We normally see him on the television.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is becoming very jealous, bitter and twisted in his old age. I understand that our right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) recently failed to turn up on the television programme "Have I Got News For You" for the third time; perhaps my hon. Friend could stand in for the right hon. tub of lard that replaced him. He is certainly substantial enough adequately to represent the former deputy leader of the Labour party.
Let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow, and other Opposition Members representing constituencies outside London, that we are not just discussing investment in London. Projects such as crossrail and the Jubilee line extension mean jobs in manufacturing industry outside the greater London area. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow said that crossrail would not provide shipbuilding jobs on the Tyne; as I told him, it would be very difficult to run ships on crossrail, but—given all the assurances provided by the hon. Member for Aylesbury in his attempt to get the Bill through tonight—he will no doubt assure my hon. Friend that that will be done if at all possible.
The former Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the appointment of consultants in his Budget speech on 16 March. Their reports have been presented to him. The Bechtel report has proposed some cost adjustments, and S. G. Warburg—appointed to assess the viability and options for private finance—has reported favourably. I hope that, in fairness to the House and the Standing Committee, the Minister will make those reports available, because they are very important. The Minister said that they contained favourable comments about the financing of crossrail; I think it incumbent on the Government to present them to members of the Standing Committee, so that they can make their decisions on an informed basis.
The Minister understands a bit about money. Why does he not talk ackers? The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) rightly pulled him up on this. How much will the private sector contribute to crossrail? The Minister said that the private sector wanted to see the legislation in place, and that it would then consider. He cannot have it both ways.
The Minister said that in the reports, the private sector said that it was favourably inclined towards crossrail. How can he now say that it wants to see the legislation in place before coming up with a definite deal? The Minister did not give the House enough assurances, and he certainly did not satisfy his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden).
There was no indication of the proportion expected to be forthcoming from the private sector or on what basis it would wish to participate. The Minister has to answer many more questions, if not in the House, they must be answered when evidence is being taken in Committee. The Minister gave no guarantee about the Government's financial commitment. This looks to us to be something akin to the Jubilee line extension. We are waiting for it and the Minister keeps assuring us that everyone thinks that it is a good idea and that money is forthcoming. When is it to happen? The Minister must answer that question.
My borough of Newham has petitioned against the Bill because, among other things, it wants to secure full disabled access at all stations, to all platforms on all the rail services covered by Crossrail. I hope that the hon.
Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) will say something about that, because there has been no mention of disabled access so far. Crossrail proposes disabled access only to Stratford and other central London stations.
Notwithstanding what I have said, we wish the Bill well. However, we will not hold our breath while we wait for crossrail to be constructed.

Mr. Norris: With the leave of the House, I should like to make a brief reply. I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). It was wonderful—a real pleasure. I have always felt diffident about the fact that the hon. Gentleman is clearly obsessed with my life style. Scarcely a day goes by when he does not either make an offer for my car or, on occasions, for my watch, which is an extraordinary implement which does not even tell the time very well. There is not a word of inscription on the back, either in English or in Latin. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep this strictly between us.
On one occasion, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West wanted to know more about my tailor. He happened to be enjoying a ride in my ministerial limousine at the time. It does not give me much pleasure to record these facts, but I lay them on the record because it is important to understand them.

Mr. Dixon: Did my hon. Friend have on his chairman's chain when he was in the ministerial limousine?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) is a shrewd judge in these matters.
This is all good, jolly knockabout stuff, but it misses an essential point. The Labour party has an extraordinary sterility on the business of investment in infrastructure in Britain. It has only one solution—the taxpayer must pay. There is no equivocation, it is always the taxpayer who pays. The Conservative party believes—it seems to be beyond peradventure—that there are many opportunities for investment, and I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) that there are many examples of such opportunities internationally, where the private sector has been able to co-operate with Governments to take great projects forward. I have no doubt that crossrail will be an example of just such a successful project.

Mr. Lidington: With the leave of the House, I wish to thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, and who have, in the main, supported the Crossrail project. I wish to thank them also for their remarks about my domestic circumstances. I shall make sure that a copy of the Bill and the relevant copy of the Official Report are stored with the christening robe and the silver-plated tea spoon.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) asked a direct question about access for the disabled. He was slightly unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) who alluded to that in her speech, but as the Member of Parliament who represents the Stoke Mandeville spinal injuries unit, I shall make sure that those points are conveyed to the promoters of the Bill.
I can tell the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that nothing in the Bill or the crossrail project would preclude the additional junctions or the electrification which he seeks. It is open to railway operators in future to take that course if they so choose.
I can assure the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) that the promoters accept utterly that they have a duty to do right by the people of Bethnal Green and the people of Hayes as much as by the people living in Mayfair or other plusher parts of central London, or indeed the leafy shires. The promoters have already been in touch with many community representatives in the areas represented by the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend. They will continue to do that and will take note of the points that have been raised tonight.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney made some broader criticisms of the Bill. I shall not reply to them at length because they were dealt with in my

speech and that of my hon. Friend the Minister except to say that passenger forecasts may have proved wrong because of the severe and long-lasting recession in London and the south-east, but despite the recession there is congestion on the Central line and at Paddington and Liverpool Street stations which demonstrates the need for the additional link that crossrail will provide.
With the economic recovery now under way, there is every prospect that the project will not only bring many thousands of new jobs in the construction industry to London and the south-east but will provide a first-class railway link in London and the south-east which will serve the region's and the capital's economy well for many years to come. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Does the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) wish to move the instruction? I see that he does not.

Question put and agreed to.

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Legal Aid

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move,
That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993 (S.R. (N.I.), 1993, No. 121), dated 11th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be revoked.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motions:
That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993 (S.R. (N.I.), 1993, No. 123), dated 11 th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be revoked.
That the Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993 (S.R. (N.I.), 1993, No. 122), dated 15th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be revoked.
That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993 (S.R. (N.I.), 1993, No. 124), dated 15th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be revoked.

Mr. McNamara: The original purpose of the legal aid scheme was that. all people, regardless of their means, should have access to the legal system; not only the poorest in our society, but also those of moderate means who could not otherwise afford to litigate.
We are committed to enabling people with limited means to have access to justice.
So said the discredited Conservative party manifesto of last year. The original aim of the legal aid scheme has now been sabotaged by Government cuts.
It seems clearly contradictory that a Government who boast about their citizens charter, much good though it has done citizens and Government, is, through the regulations, denying those same citizens the chance of enforcing their rights by cutting legal aid, and no more severely than in Northern Ireland.
There is no doubt that the regulations will have a severely restrictive effect on the availability of justice and many people will now be denied access to legal aid in Northern Ireland.
The lower limit below which a person is entitled to receive legal aid without payment of a contribution has been reduced from £3,060 to £2,294, with the upper limit remaining at £7,500 per annum for personal injuries cases and £6,800 for all others. That, coupled with the increase in the fraction of disposable income which is payable by way of contribution to one quarter to one third of the difference between that person's disposable income and the lower free limit, will have the combined effect of depriving a significant number of people in Northern Ireland of the ability and the right to seek justice.
The figures concerning the changes in Northern Ireland are not readily available, but in a written reply to a question of mine, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, said that
the effect of the introduction of the new regulations will be a small decrease in the proportion of households eligible for legal aid. It is estimated that this reduction will be in the region of two percentage points."—[Official Report, 19 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 9.]
He also indicated that more households would be made to pay increased contributions.
I believe that the figures and the suggestions put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary are misleading

and that the effect on people in Northern Ireland will be even more severe than the hon. Gentleman predicts, as there are more people on lower wages there than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Government's failure to publish figures shows all too clearly their "don't know, don't care" attitude and exposes the measures for what they really are—Treasury-inspired, ill thought out and with no consideration for the prospective litigants seeking justice in the courts.
The figures of the number of people affected in England, Wales and Scotland range from hundreds of thousands to many millions. I do not wish to play the numbers game because no one knows what the figures really are. The thing that matters is that not one single person should be denied an opportunity to obtain justice. But to satisfy the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement, money is to be saved at the expense of justice. That is not a proper basis for the changes to the legal aid system set out in these regulations. Any alteration should come about as a result of a thorough and comprehensive review of the cost-effectiveness of the legal aid system, something which has been generally lacking throughout the United Kingdom and especially in Northern Ireland.
In England and Wales, the Law Society and the Bar Council put forward an alternative package of proposals which they believed would save the Treasury £43 million and protect the eligibility levels. I have contacted the Law Society in Northern Ireland. It, too, was willing to consider any and all ways to cut costs, but, because of the profound lack of consultation surrounding these measures, the Law Society proposals have not been given the consideration that they undoubtedly deserve. The Law Society in Northern Ireland invited the Lord Chancellor some time ago to discuss the best ways to implement measures and it is still waiting for a reply.
My office has also been in touch in the past week with-the office of the Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland and, although not wishing to comment on actual cuts in eligibility, he has assured me that he has been active in seeking to resolve the differences beween the Lord Chancellor, the Law Society in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Bar. We wish him well in his future efforts in very testing circumstances and we hope that he has more luck in influencing the Lord Chancellor than has his counterpart, Lord Taylor, in England or, for that matter, any interested body in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would give the House an undertaking that in the future, before such regulations are brought forward from the Lord Chancellor's Department, it will work closely with all the relevant groupings in Northern Ireland because it has singularly failed to do so in this instance. Will he also give the House an undertaking that if agreed savings can be found between the professions and the Lord Chancellor's Department it will be possible to restore the cuts in eligibility in the near future?
Opposition Members had hoped that some credit might be given for the fact that in Northern Ireland expenditure on legal aid per head of population is significantly lower than in England and Wales and that the average cost of all cases is also lower. I realise that it may be unfair to compare costs because we are not always comparing like with like, but I feel that these are relevant figures. In


England and Wales the average cost of a case was £2,008, in Scotland £815 and in Northern Ireland only £613. So for the sake of argument, even if there was a case for the cuts to be made in legal aid—I do not believe for one second that there is—surely there is even less of a case for these measures to be applied to Northern Ireland than there is in England, Wales and Scotland.
Once again, an English solution to an English problem has been exported and imposed upon the people of Northern Ireland without any regard for the logic or the justice of the situation. These cuts have been introduced without particular research into the effects that they will have on Northern Ireland.
It is impossible to impose basically the same regulations on Northern Ireland when its history is so different. Northern Ireland has generally suffered higher unemployment and poverty levels and the present conflict makes access to legal aid perhaps more fundamental, more necessary, than anywhere else.
Of course, it is possible to argue that Northern Ireland, like Scotland, has been spared a certain amount of the harshness of the cuts, as the contributory part of the green form scheme has not been ended and the contribution liability will not continue throughout the life of the case, but will be limited to one year. This should, of course, be welcomed, as far as it goes, but it is more a sign of incompetence and lack of research on the part of the Lord Chancellor's Department in failing to recognise that different laws affect Northern Ireland than of any show of leniency by the Government to the people of Northern Ireland.
Furthermore, we should be under no illusion that these parts of the cuts in eligibility will not be ended. In a written reply in another place to an inquiry whether the changes in eligibility in England and Wales would largely be extended to Northern Ireland, the Lord Chancellor stated:
It is not possible, under the present enabling powers in Northern Ireland, for regulations to be brought forward immediately to give effect to two of the changes which have been made in England and Wales—namely, the extension of the payment of contributions over the lifetime of the case and the abolition of the contributory part of the legal advice and assistance scheme. Nevertheless I intend to bring forward legislation, as soon as a suitable opportunity arises, to enable the Northern Ireland civil legal aid eligibility criteria to be fully aligned with those in England and Wales."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 April 1993; Vol. 544, c. 73.]
The Lord Chancellor may regard this as a promise; I regard it as a threat.
I, and I am sure most hon. Members, hope that, before such a move is made proper research will be carried out to assess the consequences, although on experience this seems highly unlikely and the people of Northern Ireland will, as a result, suffer for it.
I was under the impression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Whips were silent. They are also, apparently, deaf. Therefore, I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman—

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): Not learned.

Mr. McNamara: I take the hon. Gentleman's word for it that he is not learned. Certainly the content of his regulations when they came before us were not. But I assume that he is an honourable man. Therefore I ask the

hon. Gentleman to give an undertaking to present an extensive consultation paper before these further changes are proposed.
It is vital for the Government to commission a wide-ranging and detailed study into the effects of the legal aid eligibility cuts throughout Northern Ireland. Work must be done urgently to establish the cause of the rising costs. How can the Lord Chancellor talk of
targeting legal aid towardes those people whose need is greatest
when his Department has not even identified those who are in greatest need?
Indeed, these changes will hit some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the community. Two groups among those who will suffer the most are women and children. It seems ironic that, in the immediate aftermath of major expenditure on the setting up of the Child Support Agency, the Government should now be implementing proposals which will tend to reduce the availability of legal advice to the very mothers whom the Child Support Agency was designed to help.
Similarly, the Children's Order (Northern Ireland) will create a need for significant advice and assistance by lawyers to parents. These new regulations seem deliberately designed to ensure that this desperate need is not met, at a time of great emotional stress and considerable financial worry for women and their children.
Such a study as Labour is urging would establish the savings that could be made in the ways in which legal services are provided. Then perhaps it would be possible to raise, not cut, eligibility levels. Unless such a review is undertaken, the very person that the whole scheme was constructed to help, the person of modest means with a legitimate case, will the greatest sufferer. The unhappy effect of all the Government's recent conduct of financial affairs has been that the person of modest means—wherever that person may be—has been the greatest sufferer.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): It is important to set the debate in its context. Disciplines on public expenditure are necessary. Notwithstanding that fact, we are entitled to say that our legal aid system in this country—in using that expression, I rightly include Northern Ireland—remains the most generous in the world.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked, "Who are the most needy?" In Northern Ireland, civil legal aid is available to 65 per cent. of households or more. That means that two thirds of the community, all the way up from the most poor, remain eligible for civil legal aid. The arrangements for criminal legal aid are even more generous, a considerably larger section of the community being eligible without contribution.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North made the common vernacular mistake of referring to the alterations as cuts. They are not cuts. Spending on legal aid in Northern Ireland is destined to continue to rise, and legal aid is actually available to a larger proportion of citizens in Northern Ireland than in Britain.
It is important to be honest about these developments. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say—as I said in answer to his parliamentary question—that we assess that a decrease of about 2 per cent. in those eligible for legal aid


is to be expected. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Law Society both in this country and in Northern Ireland suggesting packages that could involve economies. Let me say on behalf of the Lord Chancellor that those suggestions were greatly appreciated, and the Lord Chancellor's Department is more than willing to continue to explore them. In fact, those items have been on the agenda of the efficiency commission since the mid to late 1980s. I must say that there has not been a very high degree of professional urgency in pressing them. We are more than happy to look at the profession's suggestions for economies that can be made—although I must tell the House that, as I have said on another occasion, their suggestions to date have proved on examination to be worth considerably less than claimed.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State would join me in paying tribute to the legal aid staff in Northern Ireland who have continued to do their administrative work, sometimes in the most appalling and, to my mind, quite frightening conditions.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North asked me to give certain undertakings, and I will certainly address the matters that he put to me. I cannot predict what spending options might become available in more prosperous future times—in the realms of legal aid or elsewhere in public expenditure—but I am quite sure that, in more prosperous times, there will be no shortage of competition for the resources that are then available.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to comment upon the fact that the Lord Chancellor has indicated that there may well be two further disciplines to be anticipated in legal aid in Northern Ireland. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would wish me to say that these matters can in no way be delivered by an Executive act. They can be made available on a recommendation of the Executive, but it is Parliament that will decide—Parliament is the correct and ultimate forum for consulting the representatives of the people. The hon. Gentleman may be assured that that proper parliamentary route will be the only route down which any further changes can proceed.
The regulations which are the subject of this debate and which came into operation on 12 April 1993, have had the effects of decreasing the disposable income limit below which legal aid is available without payment of a contribution; increasing from one quarter to one third the fraction of disposable income which is payable as a contribution towards the cost of legal aid; decreasing the disposable income limit below which legal aid advice and assistance is available without contribution; aligning the allowances taken into account when computing disposable income in assessing eligibility for legal advice and assistance and for legal aid with those applicable for income support; increasing the sliding scale of the amount of capital to be disregarded in respect of persons of pensionable age; increasing the disposable income level below which legal advice and assistance is available; extending the disregard of certain forms of welfare benefit in the assessment of financial eligibility for legal advice and assistance and substituting a new scale of contributions payable by recipients of legal advice and assistance.
The regulations do not affect criminal legal aid in Northern Ireland and are concerned with civil legal aid, legal advice and assistance by way of representation. Having explained the main effects of the regulations, it will be helpful to the House if I explain why the Government have taken these measures at this time. The House will be

aware that the financial criteria determining eligibility for civil legal aid, for advice and assistance—commonly referred to as the green form scheme—and for assistance by way of representation—often referred to as ABWOR —in Northern Ireland, have historically been the same as those applied in England and Wales.
Over a considerable number of years, eligibility changes introduced in England and Wales have been effected simultaneously in Northern Ireland. As in England and Wales, the cost to the public purse of civil legal aid in Northern Ireland has been escalating over the last few years and the Lord Chancellor was satisfied that the policy of applying similar financial criteria in the two jurisdictions should be continued on this occasion to control the acceleration of growth.
The need for these measures is illustrated by the fact that over the past four years, overall expenditure on civil legal aid and advice in Northern Ireland has more than doubled from £.5·1 million to £10·3 million. In the three years from 1988–89 to 1991–92, the number of civil legal aid and advice and assistance bills paid increased by 22 per cent. while the cost of these bills increased by 63 per cent.
The Government are satisfied that such a rate of increase in the expenditure of taxpayers money cannot be allowed to continue. The regulations, the detailed effects of which I have already outlined to the House, will help to contain this growth in expenditure. But in so doing, the regulations have been designed to safeguard access to justice to the greatest possible extent and will direct available funding to where it is needed most. I stress that rather than being cut, expenditure on the legal aid scheme will continue to rise.
By the admission of a Labour spokesman in the House of Lords relatively recently, our system of legal aid is the most generous in the world. It is also probably one of the most expensive, if not the most expensive, and the taxpayer has an interest in the matter.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I am not entirely satisfied that the Lord Chancellor's Department is absolutely correct to say that there will be only a very small reduction in the number of households affected by the economies. I doubt very much whether the reduction will be as low as 2 per cent. of expenditure overall.
With regard to the inevitable means-testing of applications for legal aid, I am not certain whether the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is correct to say that people on low incomes will be hurt most. There are reasons to believe that people in the so-called middle-class bracket will suffer most. In many cases, middle income groups will find that legal aid actions will be priced out of their reach.
Oddly enough, the middle income group tends to be legitimately involved in seeking redress for grievances and in various civil actions. We must be very careful to ensure that those people are not being unduly deprived of resources. Could the Minister explain what he said about the vast and dramatic increase in the legal aid budget for Northern Ireland? Is it possible for him to give some categories that might show why there has been a mushrooming in the budget? He mentioned that there was the straightforward funding of legal action and legal aid


for representation. In Northern Ireland, legal aid for representation is especially important because I understand that he had third-party representations in legal cases in mind.
Thought needs to be given to a separate matter which may not be strictly relevant in the context of these orders —the impact on law centres and advice agencies. I know that that matter was considered at great length in the United Kingdom Legal Aid Act 1988. I wonder whether it is permissible to refer to that in the context of the present debate. I support the Labour party case that there should be a commonality and relationship—proportionately, if one likes—between expenditure in Great Britain and that in Northern Ireland. It is not enough for the Minister to say that the number of households will be limited. Certainly, it is no case for awarding Northern Ireland a budget that is smaller per capita than that for Great Britain. If it is the case that there is a variation and Northern Ireland is on a lower scale than the rest of the United Kingdom, that cannot be defended in any way.
I am sure that we are all searching for economies and want to ensure that moneys are spent wisely. Can we examine the possibility of effecting economies by omitting legal aid for cases that border on the frivolous on many occasions? In some cases, the cost of legal aid for preliminary hearings can be almost out of reach and has the habit of multiplying vastly when cases are taken to higher courts on appeal.

Mr. John M. Taylor: With the leave of the House, I feel that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) is entitled to a response. If there are any matters that I cannot address comprehensively because of the lateness of the hour, he and I can exchange letters because I am anxious to be obliging. He dwelt on the. question whether we could enlarge on why the legal aid bill had gone up so much. That has been a source of puzzlement in the Lord Chancellor's Department.
One is driven to a conclusion which may require further investigation, but the fact is—I do not say this whimsically but in a straight manner—that the legal aid bill has gone up because lawyers' bills have been escalating faster than any known relevant attendant index. Certainly, volume has increased a little, but lawyers' bills have gone up much more than volume. One must look at the unit costs of the practitioner. Why are cases taking longer? I am tempted to say—with some humility—that, since the lawyers drafted the bills in the first place, perhaps they can help us by explaining why their bills have gone up. I would be interested to hear their explanation.
I have always tried to be sensitive to the interests of Northern Ireland and its representatives in the House. I give a pledge—I was not asked for this—that I will continue to examine closely any representation that comes from Northern Ireland and its hon. and right hon. representatives in the House. I end as I began: this is probably the most generous system of legal aid in the world. However, it is expensive and we must exercise some discipline from time to time.

Mr. McNamara: By the leave of the House, I shall make just two observations. The first is in reply to what the leader of the Ulster Unionists said about the measure affecting many people. By modest means I referred to the salary and wage levels in Northern Ireland in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom. But the effect of the increases could be across the board.
My second observation is that if we are punishing the litigant for the sins of the profession, the Government should have examined that in any case, in their auditing and control of payment of moneys. It seems wrong that the ordinary citizen should suffer because of what the Minister suggests is some fault on the part of the legal profession. That, above all, is the reason why we should vote against the regulations tonight.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 129.

Division No. 290]
[10.50 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
McCartney, Ian


Battle, John
McFall, John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
McMaster, Gordon


Boyce, Jimmy
McNamara, Kevin


Caborn, Richard
Mahon, Alice


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mallon, Seamus


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Coffey, Ann
Meale, Alan



Cryer, Bob
Michael, Alun


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Milburn, Alan


Dixon, Don
Miller, Andrew


Dowd, Jim
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Etherington, Bill
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fatchett, Derek
Pike, Peter L.



Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Primarolo, Dawn


Gordon, Mildred
Rendel, David


Graham, Thomas
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hanson, David
Skinner, Dennis


Hendron, Dr Joe
Spellar, John


Hinchliffe, David
Stott, Roger


Home Robertson, John
Wallace, James


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wilson, Brian


Hoyle, Doug
Wise, Audrey


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Worthington, Tony


Hume, John



Illsley, Eric
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jowell, Tessa
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.




NOES


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Chapman, Sydney


Amess, David
Congdon, David


Ancram, Michael
Conway, Derek


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cran, James


Baldry, Tony
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bates, Michael
Day, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Devlin, Tim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dover, Den


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Duncan, Alan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bowis, John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brazier, Julian
Fabricant, Michael


Bright, Graham
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forth, Eric


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Burns, Simon
Freeman, Roger


Burt, Alistair
French, Douglas


Carrington, Matthew
Gale, Roger


Carttiss, Michael
Gallie, Phil






Gardiner, Sir George
Oppenheim, Phillip


Garnier, Edward
Page, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Patnick, Irvine


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gorst, John
Richards, Rod


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hague, William
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Harris, David
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hayes, Jerry
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Heald, Oliver
Sackville, Tom


Hendry, Charles
Shaw, David (Dover)


Horam, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Spink, Dr Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Sproat, Iain


Jack, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jessel, Toby
Stern, Anthony


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stephen, Michael


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Streeter, Gary


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sweeney, Walter


Knapman, Roger
Sykes, John


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)



Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Legg, Barry
Thurnham, Peter


Lidington, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Lightbown, David
Tredinnick, David


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Trend, Michael



MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr Ian


MacKay, Andrew
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Maclean, David
Waterson, Nigel


Maitland, Lady Olga
Watts, John


Malone, Gerald
Wells, Bowen


Mans, Keith
Whittingdale, John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Widdecombe, Ann


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Willetts, David


Mates, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick



Merchant, Piers
Tellers for the Noes:


Neubert, Sir Michael
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. Michael Brown.


Norris, Steve

Question accordingly negatived.

Killingbeck Hospital, Leeds

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Arbuthnot.]

11 pm

Mr. George Mudie: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Health to matters relating to the proposed centralisation at the Leeds general infirmary of the cardio-thoracic facilities of Killingbeck hospital and the subsequent disposal of that hospital site. Although I shall also touch on the parallel proposal to centralise the neurosurgical work currently undertaken at Pinderfields hospital in Wakefield, my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to deal with that in greater detail.
I wish to draw a number of matters to the attention of the Minister and, in particular, to ask him to intervene. I must underline the widespread unhappiness felt in Leeds and the surrounding areas about the proposals to relocate the excellent work carried out at Killingbeck hospital at Leeds general infirmary. That hospital has been long established and is secure in the affection of the Leeds people. Excellent work is carried out in its cardio-thoracic and respiratory units by their completely dedicated staff.
More than 900,000 heart operations are carried out at the hospital, and some involve tremendous work on children. The hospital's reputation is worldwide, it conducts first-class research and could continue to provide that superb service to the wider community for a fraction of the capital sum that has been expended so generously by the Government to the LGI.
Killingbeck's location is unique because it is surrounded by park land and has excellent road links with all of Yorkshire. It is a source of puzzlement to all in West Yorkshire that those benefits have been disregarded in the rush to centralise services in a city centre site, in a multi-storey block at that. Time and time again, lay and medical staff of the hospital stress the recuperative value of its surroundings.
It is of vital interest to consider the history of the closure proposals, which appeared in the 1980s, when a regional review was conducted. That review eventually led to a report, as yet unpublished, that suggested that the thoracic facilities of Killingbeck and the neurosurgical facilities of Pinderfields might be centralised at LGI.
The unpublished report was hotly disputed by the medical staff at Killingbeck hospital. It was not then a unanimous view and, until recently, the argument in favour of centralisation bringing patient benefits was severely challenged. However, it was and has always been accepted that more money had to be spent, and that both buildings, the LGI and Killingbeck, suffer from problems of age. There is a great difference between spending modest but sensible sums and the amount being advanced in respect of the LGI.
When, in 1989, the unpublished report suggested centralising the LGI services, the proposal was warmly welcomed by the LGI, as it meant securing much-needed capital investment in the aging hospital. The proposed centralisation gave the hospital a golden opportunity. The decision to go ahead with the proposal was taken in 1989, and work on a £4 million multi-storey car park started last year, as the Minister is aware.
However, as with most things in life, nothing stands still. The Pinderfields hospital's proposed move was put out to public consultation a year ago, met with unanimous opposition and was hurriedly withdrawn. The inevitable committee was established, and is still deliberating to this day. Killingbeck relocation and closure proposals were released for consultation 10 days ago, and are programmed to run for three months.
A decision taken in 1989, which committed more than £75 million of public money, has been overtaken by events. One major user—Pinderfields—has serious doubts, and the second user is in the early stages of consultation and the opposition is just as fierce. Some issues relating to the credibility of the consultation need airing and answering.
There is deep disquiet in Leeds over the status of the consultation. First, why is the Minister allowing the LGI to go ahead with a £70 million new block, built with the stated aim of centralising both cardio-thoracic and neurosurgical work when, as I stand here in the Chamber, neither proposal has completed its consultation period?
Secondly, why is the Minister allowing a contract to be signed for the new building when it is clear that Pinderfields will not permit the neurosurgical work to come to Leeds? If the Minister replies that the work will come to Leeds even though the proposal faced total opposition, what validity does consultation have?
The third and most important reason for concern relates to the consultation and an open public debate on the value of centralising the services. How can the people of Leeds feel confident in the consultation process when, from 1 April this year, the LGI has been managing the Killingbeck site? Does the Minister know that, only days ago, the LGI reinstated a whistleblower, but only after strenuous efforts had been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett)?
That behaviour is hardly the sign of a benevolent management. Does the Minister feel that, on the basis of such behaviour, staff will be inclined to participate in an, open debate on the key medical aspects of the exercise? I believe that public airing of the medical arguments is impossible, as staff are only too well aware that their future careers rest with the LGI.
Fourthly, how can the people of Leeds have faith in the consultation process when, the day after the consultation paper was released, the Yorkshire Evening Post revealed secret plans prepared by Touche Ross at the instruction of a developer which disclosed details of a multi-millionpound development, including a private health centre, a luxury hotel and a shopping complex on the Killingbeck site?
How can the public have confidence and feel that their views will be taken into account when a director of health care, a member of the consulting body, admitted last week in a radio programme that the health care body had already had discussions and—the impertinence of it—had even had disagreements over the proceeds from the sale of the Killingbeck site? Remember, that body has been issuing the consultation documents. How can the Minister defend the validity of the consultations when a consultant at Killingbeck hospital was quoted by The Yorkshire Evening Post as saying:
Public consultation will be nothing more than a cosmetic exercise"?

I am anxious that the Minister appreciates that four years ago, a decision was taken and was challenged at the time. That decision, depending on one's standpoint, had a certain validity. It involved centralised neurosurgery and cardio-thoracics at the LGI at a cost, for the first phase, of about £75 million. The Ministry accepted the plan and pencilled in the money. Today, four years later, half the plan has unravelled, because public hostility has been dropped and towards the other half the same level of public hostility exists or, at least, is uncommitted.
Where does that leave the Minister? If he does not think it interesting enough to have a closer look, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury should. I appeal to the Minister to take time to consider the background. The new development will produce only 20 cardio-thoracic beds and no additional operating facilities. Is that worth £70 million? I suggest he takes another look at the plan.
To give him time to undertake that review and to give the consultations the credibility that they sadly lack, I urge him to instruct the LGI not to sign a commitment to the contract on the new building. The LGI knows the implications of the review, and fears it. Two hours before I rose to speak tonight, I was approached by a senior member of the LGI and urged not to suggest that in this Chamber. The LGI knows that it is in a building programme under false pretences. While I understand its need, I shall not be party—and I hope the Minister will not be party—to it getting a refurbished hospital at the cost of Pinderfields and Killingbeck hospitals.
If the Minister gives himself the necessary breathing space, he will find the facts to be as I have outlined them. He may find that there are other, and cheaper, ways of delivering the stated objectives. He may find the other Leeds hospitals indulging in some fresh thinking. He will end up achieving a victory over medical politics and empire-building. He will certainly gain the eternal gratitude of the people of Leeds.

Mr. William O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) on having raised on the Adjournment the significant and important issue of the future of Killingbeck hospital. As he explained, because of empire-building at Leeds general infirmary, services at Pinderfields are in danger. Indeed, the whole future of Pinderfields is in doubt.
The neurosurgical department at Pinderfields is among the most efficient in the Yorkshire region. There are at present only three such facilities—in Hull, at Pinderfields and in the LGI. If the programme set a few months ago is allowed to proceed, the neurosurgical department at Pinderfields could be lost.
Tremendous opposition was expressed when a consultative document was issued. So highly valued are the Pinderfields services by communities some distance from the hospital that the document was withdrawn. One reason for that was that it had not been costed. So when people started asking questions about cost comparisons, no answers were forthcoming from the regional health office, and the document had to be withdrawn.
Because of the stupidity of the regional health authority, a group of people were brought together to analyse the objections put to the original consultation exercise. The resulting committee is due to report back in the near future. The committee refused to meet the


chairman of the Wakefield community health council to hear the views of that council on the neurosurgical department at Pinderfields. Now we await the report.
I ask the Minister to insist on further consultations arising out of the complaints submitted for the first consultation document. Failing that, I join my hon. Friend in saying that there has been maladministration here. If it had taken place in local government, these people would have been charged with maladministration. As it is, they may be in this case. Anyway, there must be more consultations after the report by the review committee. I ask the Minister to afford that opportunity to the people who use the neurosurgical department at Pinderfields.
If the department is withdrawn from Pinderfields, the young disabled unit which forms part of it will be in danger. It is the only unit of its kind in West Yorkshire. It would be quite wrong to let such a facility disappear. Since 1 April this year, when community care was introduced, there has been a greater need for such a unit in the neurosurgical department to afford respite care for those with neurosurgical problems.
From the point of view of communications, nowhere is better placed than Pinderfields. From the M1 or the M62, people can be transported to the hospital buildings within minutes. The helicopter pad is first-class. If there are any better facilities in West Yorkshire, I would like the Minister to tell us about them. The car parking at Pinderfields is first-rate too. Only a few weeks ago I went to St. James's, where parking is, to say the least, traumatic. No such problem exists at Pinderfields.
There is a great deal to be said for maintaining the neurosurgical department at Pinderfields, and I ask the Minister to consider what I have said.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I have almost lost my voice, but I shall attempt to muddle through.
I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Leeds, East. (Mr. Mudie), who has initiated a debate on a number of important topics. I am pleased to see his colleagues in their places, and to see my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds. North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who takes a strong interest in this matter.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) have made some serious allegations against local management, and have repeatedly questioned their motives and competence. Let me give my version of the history of the proposals.
Cardio-thoracic services are currently provided at two sites in Leeds, Killingbeck and the LGI. In 1988, the regional health authority commissioned a review of cardio-thoracic services and associated cardiology from the York health economics consortium. The review concluded that cardio-thoracic services should be concentrated on two sites—one unit in East and the other in West Yorkshire. There was a wide-ranging discussion on the outcome of the review, involving consultant surgeons, cardiologists and health authorities in the region.
In early 1990, St. James's, the LGI and Seacroft were invited to submit proposals for a new West Yorkshire cardio-thoracic unit to be developed on their sites.
Following an option appraisal of all three bids, it was proposed to centralise cardio-thoracic services for West Yorkshire at new facilities to be built at the LGI.
As a consequence, the regional health authority examined ways in which the facilities at the LGI could be improved. As the cardio-thoracic facilities in both Killingbeck and the LGI are housed in fairly elderly buildings, it was recognised that they would have to be replaced at some point. Killingbeck is about 90 years old, and a recent survey of the estate estimated that a substantial sum needed to be spent on bringing it up to scratch. This led to a proposal to construct a purpose-built cardio-thoracic unit as part of the first phase of the redevelopment at the LGI. The proposals for that phase —to redevelop the site and provide modern facilities and better patient care, at a cost of some £72 million—were approved by my Department in July 1992.
That approval is an approval in principle, for a very good reason. It is an approval of the principle of a capital development, and is given only after careful consideration. It does not carry with it approval of any consequential changes that may require consultation. The approval was not conditional on the closure of Killingbeck hospital, and there has never been any question that Leeds Healthcare, or anyone else, can move cardio-thoracic services from Killingbeck to the LGI without full public consultation. The business case for the redevelopment of the LGI is not dependent on the centralisation of these services.
As the hon. Member for Leeds, East pointed out, Killingbeck is now a directly managed unit, and is part of the district health authority, Leeds Healthcare. So that Leeds Healthcare could carry out its primary function of commissioning the best possible care for the people of Leeds, it asked the LGI to manage Killingbeck on an agency basis. The LGI is responsible to the district health authority for the day-to-day running of Killingbeck; it has no power to make major changes or to sell assets. There is no secret back-door merger. The staff at Killingbeck are, of course, still employed by Leeds Healthcare, and have been kept informed about the changes and the reasons for them.
Following the various proposals to centralise cardiothoracic services, the next stage was for Leeds Healthcare itself carefully to examine the proposals for the location of the centre. It is for purchasers to decide what health care is needed, and how it should be provided. The aim of Leeds Healthcare, as the lead purchaser, is to secure the best possible patient care—within available resources—for the people of Leeds and West Yorkshire.
Naturally, the views of clinicians and other staff at the LGI and Killingbeck were taken into account when the proposals were put together. The outcome of the discussions was the consultation document that has recently been circulated to a large number of medical bodies, to Members of Parliament and to health and local authorities, voluntary groups and trusts, as well as to the media. The purpose of the document is to invite public discussion of the proposals, and to invite organisations and members of the public to write in with their comments.
There may be some surprise at the fact that Leeds Healthcare is consulting so early on proposals that could not take place before 1996. However, purchasers in supporting the Leeds general infirmary development have to consider what impact the development would have on their requirements for Killingbeck's services. For its part, the LGI needs to know that purchaser's support can be


translated into action. That could not happen if, as a result of consultation, purchasers were prevented from moving services from Killingbeck. It is also important that patients and staff know where they stand and that uncertainty is ended. All that indicated an early consultation exercise.
At the end of the consultation period, Leeds Healthcare will consider the proposal in the light of the responses made during the consultation period. That will be not a rubber stamp but a serious re-examination of the proposals. Health authorities are well aware that proposals referred to Ministers are scrutinised very closely and no health authority worth its salt will want a reputation among Ministers as an author of half-baked schemes. However, if the proposals were opposed by the local community health council—we must not assume that it will disagree—and the health authority still wished to proceed, the case would be referred to the regional health authority. If the RHA wished to proceed, the matter would automatically come before Ministers.
Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have considered the merits of these proposals. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, when Ministers receive proposals from any health authority to close any hospital, they do not go through on the nod. Before we take any decision, we want to be sure that the correct consultation procedures have been followed. We will take into account what other services are available, and we will listen to the views of staff, who have been instrumental in giving cardio-thoracic surgery and

cardiology the reputation that they have in Leeds. The most important criterion on which the proposals will be judged is that they are in the best interests of patients. We all want to be sure that the proposals will provide the best clinical care with the available resources.
I have listened carefully to the points made by the hon. Members for Leeds, East and for Normanton, and I understand the strong feelings that these proposals awake in local people. I have heard the hon. Member for Leeds, East express doubts about the validity of the new development and on consultation, on which I should like particularly to reassure him.

Mr. William O'Brien: Obviously, the Minister does not have information on the question that I asked about neurosurgery. However, will he ensure that there will be further consultation on the report that will be submitted to the regional health authority from the group set up to examine the responses of those who objected to the earlier consultation document, which was withdrawn because it has not been costed?

Mr. Sackville: I can say only that all representations will be fully considered. As a result of this debate, I am fully aware of the strength of feeling that exists about both proposals—[Interruption.] As I have said, all representations will be fully- considered. No action will be taken unless Ministers are satisfied that it is in the full interests of the people of Leeds and West Yorkshire.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.